At Least You Get a Tote Bag

Something to consider when PBS launches its next fundraising drive:

Richard Perle, former assistant secretary of Defense under Reagan and a chief White House proponent of the Iraq War, will be online Tuesday, April 17 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss "The Case for War: In Defense of Freedom" -- the second installment of PBS's "America at a Crossroads" series -- which follows him as he travels the globe articulating, defending and debating the neoconservative case for an assertive American foreign policy.

Uh, huh. The liberal case for PBS privatization grows stronger. America at the Crossroads by Francis Fukuyama is, unlike Perle's similarly named TV series, highly recommended.

Comments

I see nothing wrong with allowing Richard Perle to "[articulate, defend and debate] the neoconservative case for an assertive American foreign policy" on PBS. I believe that all points of view should be aired, especially in the context of a debate with someone with opposing views.

There's a vast difference between giving airtime to someone many of its viewers don't agree with (PBS), and constantly airing biased, deceitful garbage labeled as "news" (Fox.)

Posted by James Gary | April 17, 2007 8:36 AM

Of course, James Gary is correct in his comment above. PBS is not the same as FOX. Agreed it is not (like Fox) the official organ for the fascist-wing of the Republican Party. But having said that the comments raised are not addressed. In the context of the massive failure of the American press and news media to function in a serious journalistic way cutting through the fraud, deceit, lies that have characterized every act of the last six years of this despicable administration in its attack on the American Constitution our system of government the welfare of its people, how has PBS fared...like an essential cog in the system that has brought us these policies. PBS is not Fox. but it has been aboard the Republican search and destroy mission.

Posted by della Rovere | April 17, 2007 8:54 AM

I think Matt should watch the series or at least read detailed summaries of the individual programs before calling it all neocon propoganda. The first night was a history of al qaeda that was a straightforward liberal narrative (i.e., reality) about how al qaeda rose, executed 9/11, was almost crushed in afghanistan, and then rose again due to the Iraq fiasco. This storyline was presented WITHOUT the customary journalistic hedging ("...while conservatives in the Administration would argue..."). This first program also presented a persuasive case (at least to me) for why we are likely to get hit again with wmd's (probably nuclear). It did so without the normal fearmongering. Kudos to Robert McNeil for a solid series.

Posted by Jeff Hayes | April 17, 2007 9:07 AM

When are we getting the matthewyglesias.com tote bags, not to mention t-shirts-n-mugs?

Posted by otto | April 17, 2007 9:10 AM

I agree with Jeff's comment above. Bob Edwards interviewed McNeil over the weekend, and his [McNeil's] idea for the series is to create these distinct one-hour segments as perspective pieces on what has happened. Giving Perle enough rope to hang himself unassisted seems like a public duty for which PBS is distinctly suited: providing a unique historical record - something like a stele from antiquity - which future generations can use to understand just how stupid, arrogant, and dishonest this glorious Administration really was.

Posted by Nisan Chavkin | April 17, 2007 9:27 AM

Just the second installment, not the whole series

I saw the first installment, and I agree with Jeff Hayes that is was informative, without apparent axers to grind, and concentrated on the true "foundation" of the problem of al Qaeda. In effect, since reality has a well-known liberal bias, doing this actually had a very strong liberal bias. The first installment asked the question that was so pointedly, and disastrously, declared out of bounds in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, why did they do 9/11? Our response since then has made sense only if you think we are dealing with rabid animals about whom it makes no sense to even talk about having motives, however misguided.

I understand the full series has twelve installments. Even if they do nothing within this second installment to frame and correct Perle's version of reality, and simply turn the whole show over to him, they've already framed what he has to say with their first installment. And there's still 10 installments to go of letting the other side, and reality, refute Perle. I'ld withold judgment until we see how fairly or unfairly they let the other side and reality have their say.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | April 17, 2007 9:35 AM

The second hour last night "Operation Homecoming" wasn't a neo-con slice of propaganda Matt, it was a fairly good program where soldiers related their experiences about Iraq as stories, including bits from instructors who worked with them. I can't call something that features vignettes from the likes of Paul Fussell, Tim O'Brien, Joe Haldeman, and other WWII, Korean, and Vietnam war vets (who themselves are authors who served as writing instructors for the military's program this all came out of) as anything other than a very sincere attempt to give some soldiers the chance tell their own personal stories about Iraq to a wider audience. This is the sort of thing that only PBS does, and it is worth supporting.

Posted by David W. | April 17, 2007 9:42 AM

Reasonable, well-argued responses to an irrational post. Matt, I would never have guessed you were so intellectually insecure. Not only are you saying you don't want to hear an opinion you disagree with, you want to zero out from public funding an entire media network for having the termerity to voice (among 11 others) this perspective. Some commitment to intellectual honesty! Frankly, I very disappointed.

Posted by David Blumgart | April 17, 2007 9:50 AM

Save the fucking sanctimony, please.

Posted by David Blumgart | April 17, 2007 10:29 AM

Sorry, that last comment was from me, TO David Blumgart, not from him. I can't even get my insults right this morning.

Posted by Mike | April 17, 2007 10:30 AM

Matt: All the comments are right and you are wrong.

So far, this series has featured two hours detailing the history of Al Queda, one hour showing (as I saw it) how impossible and counterproductive our troops mission in Iraq actually is, and one hour focusing on the emotional cost of war on the troops. Future segments include "Security vs. Liberty: The Other War" and several segments focusing on the war as seen by from a number of other perspectives (Europe, American Muslims, etc.).

To me, giving Perle a segment here is no different than the attention you give to various conservative commentators on your site. Take a neocon and surround his ideas with the facts and you have defeated him.

Posted by Leo | April 17, 2007 10:55 AM

Damn, and I was hoping Matt's blog had started attracting the schizos.

Posted by JP | April 17, 2007 11:56 AM

Yes, PBS, noted servant of the neo-con agenda. You stupid fuck.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | April 17, 2007 12:10 PM

Richard Perle is deceitful garbage. He should be in jail and PBS should find someone who doesn't suck the blood of children, unless the show is about what a lying, slimy parasite he is.

Posted by Toadmonster | April 17, 2007 4:29 PM

The series so far has been pretty good television. The Perle segment is going to coincide with some errands I'll have to do -- maybe I have to wash my hair, I haven't decided -- but really the AQ segment, and the readings from various soldiers was pretty good stuff.

Posted by CharleyCarp | April 17, 2007 7:54 PM

Check out Perle's bizarre response to a question on today's Wapo discussion on the series:

"Finding WMD in Iraq could only have been accomplished by offering safety to people involved in the prior programs and removing them and their extended families from Iraq where they were in mortal danger. Blix, for reasons I will never understand, did not inisit on the authority to offer sanctuary so he was reduced to touring the old sites associated with earlier WMD activity. In any case, we now know that the stockpiles that were thought to exist did not."

Got that. If only Blix had done things differently he could have found the WMD, which did not exist.

Posted by NYT | April 17, 2007 9:02 PM

Seems like matt is being a little sarcastic.

Posted by SAO | April 17, 2007 9:16 PM

Actually, the Perle documentary was helpful at illustrating the utterly disconnected from reality views of the neocons.

Easy to see how Chalabi and other Iraqi ex-pats played this guy.

Dress up in an expensive western business suit and mouth whatever sweet nothings Perle wants to hear and you too can get his support.

Posted by pm | April 17, 2007 11:37 PM