Of course Rove is a faithful Christian, and he probably was even before Moyers repeated the assertion that he isn't. If he says that he believes, then he must. If he says he reads a daily devotional, then it must be so. If he says he speaks with God on a daily basis, then he does. And if Bush says he loses sleep over the deaths of American soldiers, and is deeply troubled by that, then it must be so. If President Bush says that the U.S. "does not torture", it must be so. I believe. I believe! I truly believe!

Moyers did do a sloppy job in that report, no doubt. Trusting any information that came from or was filtered through Christopher Hitchens was one mistake. Venturing into the unproveable realm of "is so-and-so really a believer?" was another. Yet the idea that anyone at Fox News (the White House propaganda channel) could be a credible instructor for a "Journalism 101" lesson seems absurd to me. Similar to Dick Cheney giving a lesson in gun safety.

Sara seems to need some instruction in "Blogging 101." First, don't be a one trick pony. Reusing the Cheney in back-to-back posts is already tired. Try to be original if you are going to be snarky, O.K.?

Second, try not to demonstrate why it is that ad hominem is logical fallacy quite so beautifully. "Moyers did do a sloppy job" but boo hoo, I don't like Fox. Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were right, weren't they? And they made Moyer's look foolish for failing to meet even the minimums of journalism. As your first graph suggests, you don't need to believe the truth of the person that you interview, but if you are saying that they believe something, you have a duty to try to interview him or her. Moyer doesn't get that, because he is shill for the hard left, and that actually does prevent him from doing real journalism.

"Blog Instructor" - Instructor Alt, perhaps?: That wasn't ad hominem. If an institution is known for not being good at something, then it is usually not seen as a credible source for instruction in that field. FoxNews doesn't do serious journalism, so it's reasonable to see that they're not a credible source for instruction in journalism. As for the particular case of Wallace taking Moyers to school, well, as they say, even a broken clock is right 2 minutes out of every day.

As for my one-trick pony, my apologies for not living up to your high standards for snark. Let me try some others. The idea that anyone at FoxNews could be a credible instructor (even if correct once in a blue moon) in journalism is as absurd as George Bush teaching a class on international diplomacy, Don Rumsfeld teaching a class on winning a war in just a few weeks, or how to armor your troops for maximum defensive effectiveness. Or Gonzalez teaching a class on the Importance of Maintaining Human Rights.

Rove can claim to be a Christian until he turns blue. That doesn't mean much of anything.

It seems that you still weren't paying attention. As I stated before, you don't have to believe what Rove says, but if you are reporting what he purportedly personally believes, you have to attempt to him what it is he believes, O.K.? Moyers didn't do that, which shows that he genuinely is a hack--an accusation you make about Fox. Oh, and while it doesn't dispositively prove his religious convictions, Wallace notes in the video that Rove's largest charitable contribution is to his church, which might be some indication of his priorities. You may now proceed to say that such contributions don't prove anything more than Machiavellian designs, but the only evidence you and Moyers have that he is simply manipulating religion is your own malice and contempt. Please don't let facts get in the way of that.

Sara Gordalli is pro-terrorist. So is Bill Moyers.