Bill Moyers, former press secretary turned acclaimed journalist, dead at 91
Bill Moyers, a former press secretary to President Lyndon B. Johnson who turned into a longtime broadcast journalist and champion of public media, has died at age 91, his family confirmed to CNN.
The acclaimed journalist's son, William Moyers, said he died of complications from a long illness. His wife of nearly 71 years, Judith Davidson Moyers, was by his side.
Moyers, who was once described by Walter Cronkite as 'the conscience' of the country, was a public television pioneer, leading multiple installments of 'Bill Moyers' Journal' on PBS stations in the 1970s and again in the late 2000s.
His storied career also included chapters as the publisher of Newsday; a presidential debate moderator; a correspondent at CBS News; and analyst at NBC News.
Through five decades on the air, 'he reached the heights of excellence in journalism,' former CNN president Tom Johnson said, noting that many compared Moyers to 'the Edward R. Murrow of those times.'
Johnson was an assistant to Moyers during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, when Moyers served as press secretary and one of the most trusted advisors to the president.
Moyers was instrumental in setting up the task forces that led to Johnson's creation of the Great Society programs of the 1960s.
'At the root of the Great Society was only an idea,' Moyers wrote in his memoir, that 'free men and women can work with their government to make things better.'
In a 2019 interview with CNN, Moyers — who was still busy analyzing the news, then at his own website — said that 'for the first time in my long life,' he feared for America.
'I was born in the Depression, lived through World War II, have been a part of politics and government for all these years,' he said, before observing that 'a society, a democracy can die of too many lies. And we're getting close to that terminal moment unless we reverse the obsession with lies that are being fed around the country.'
Still, Moyers said, 'do facts matter anymore? I think they do.'
Throughout his decades-long career, Moyers received 35 Emmy Awards, two Alfred I. Dupont-Columbia University Awards, nine Peabody Awards and three George Polk Awards. Moyers also received the first-ever Honorary Doctor of Fine Arts from the American Film Institute.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
John Bolton writes off US strikes in Iran as Trump ‘campaigning‘ for Nobel Peace Prize
Former U.S. national security adviser John Bolton sharply criticized President Trump's Iran strategy and expressed broad skepticism about the prospect of making peace with Tehran in a Friday appearance on the Financial Times podcast Swamp Notes. Bolton made clear that he supported the American airstrikes last week that targeted three Iranian nuclear facilities but also suggested that Trump had personal motivations. 'I think what he's doing is campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize, and he thought he'd get it in the Ukraine-Russia war. That didn't happen,' Bolton said in a response to a question about Trump's claims of victory in the aftermath of the strikes. 'But I think he's looking at the possibility that maybe he can get it here.' Several GOP lawmakers have made moves in recent days to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. The government of Pakistan also nominated him last week. Trump griped last week before the strikes that he would never get a Nobel Peace Prize, arguing that he deserved one for American peace efforts in Ukraine, Rwanda and a number of other conflicts. Bolton, a noted Iran hawk, was sharply critical of Trump's proposed tactics toward achieving peace in the country, referencing a CNN report that the United States was exploring helping Tehran access as much as $30 billion in funding for a civilian nuclear program. Trump has denied such reports. 'This is madness,' the former national security advisor said. 'I don't expect this to go anywhere, because to be truly satisfied that a country the size of Iran was really only engaged in peaceful nuclear activity requires an intrusive presence, whether it's the IAEA or foreign intelligence services, that the ayatollahs simply will never permit.' After first maintaining that the strikes were a one-time, targeted measure to disable key Iranian nuclear sites and help negotiate a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, Trump's rhetoric on Iran has heated up in recent days. He said Friday that he would consider bombing the country again if concerns about its nuclear program mounted. Bolton, a longtime skeptic of peace efforts with Iran, including the Obama-era nuclear deal, questioned whether Trump could effectively negotiate with the regime. 'When you're dealing with that kind of ideology, it's not like a Manhattan real estate deal,' he said. Even prior to the onset of strikes between Israel and Iran earlier this month, Bolton insisted that planned nuclear talks with the United States were 'fruitless.' He repeated similar lines on the FT podcast Friday, calling the Iranian government 'a group of medieval religious fanatics.'
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Tens of thousands of protesters at Hostages Square call for an end to the Gaza war
CNN's Nic Robertson reports from Tel Aviv where tens of thousands of anti-war protesters packed Hostages Square to call for an end to the Gaza war and the return of the remaining hostages.
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Advertisement Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Advertisement But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Advertisement Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that 'we are all afraid' of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Advertisement Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that 'district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors' of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not 'carefully heed this court's guidance' and act within limits, 'this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene.' In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship,' she wrote. 'Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.' Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. Advertisement All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing 'legalese,' she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. 'In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law — and it must,' she wrote before striking a cautionary note. Advertisement 'Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law,' she added. 'By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law.' But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so.' This article originally appeared in
