PBS Dropped 'Islam vs. Islamists' On political grounds

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Apr 26, 2007.

  1. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #1
    THIS IS THE LINK RIGHT HERE.

    PBS should reflect all parts of the political spectrum in its programming.
     
  2. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #2
    Aww... don't be so shy about showing the source of this screed... why so shy with the "*" how about a proper link:

    http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/04/pbs_dropped_isl.php

    So what is this site? Another obscure rightwing nutjob thingie with bad graphics and odd fonts? Why, yes indeed:

    "Media bias against conservatives? No way, you say. And surely public television is fair, balanced, and impartial. Right? You and I both know the truth, don't we!

    PBS has been a liberal sacred cow from its very beginning, and only the most willfully self-deluded among us would even attempt to argue that its political programming is anything but a recitation of the liberal progressive agenda."


    Well, with such objectivity, I'll be sure to take their word for what actually happened. That's because when I'm interested in African-American civil rights issues, I turn to the KKK, and when I want to know the latest on Jewish issues, I turn to that trusty source, the American Nazi Party.

    Now, maybe PBS indeed is a treasonous anti-American hate-cell hiding commies under our beds, but before we make up our minds about what happened in this case, we'll need to find some sources*.

    *NOTE: the link provided does not lead to "sources". Just to make clear, kthx.
     
  3. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #3
    OldCorpse, just calm down, take a deep breath.

    HERE is another link for you. Its in all caps so you can see it better. :)

    If you would like to post a link to an article refuting this story, feel free.

    I would just like to see the documentary. Now I can't because PBS pulled it. Why would they do that?
     
  4. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #4
    Gee, I don't know why they pulled it. That's kinda the point, y'know. Because, see, the link you provided is worthless, pardner. There could be a million reasons. Maybe not all rights were cleared. Only we wouldn't hear that from your site, because see, when you got a wingnut site, see, their info is worthless, that's how it works - zero credibility, see. Weird, huh? Or maybe the "documentary" is a worthlessly produced, amateurish screed which no station would want to put on the air, PBS or not - again, we only hear from the producer of this thing and even then, only through the lovely lens of that lovely site you just linked to. Because, it would never happen that a producer hypes his documentary claiming it was dropped for "political" reasons, just to drum up publicity - oh, no, no producer would do that, no siree bob. My point is: we know nothing. Maybe yes, and maybe no. But relying on your site is like relying on George Bush to tell us how it is in Iraq - you know, 100% worthless.
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    from here:
     
  6. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #6
    So, I threw this into google, and here's what I found:

    http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37401

    "Executives at WETA, the Washington D.C. TV station overseeing the series for PBS, say the documentary was cut because its agenda was irresponsible and lacked the obligation of fairness.

    "The writing is alarmist and overreaching without adequate context and specific information to justify the tone and degree of generalisation," wrote Crossroads series producer Leo Eaton to Gaffney in an evaluation of the documentary's final cut. "There are awkwardly phrased assertions, convoluted reasoning, and implications of connections between subjects without evidence."


    Btw. this site is hardly a left-wing liberal bastion. They show both sides, and you can decide:

    "It's not about America, and it's not about the war on terror. It's basically the experiences of individuals, with no real explanation of what the topic is," McCloud said.

    "It's not about a left bias or a right bias, or else Richard Perle's film wouldn't have been there," she added, referring to "The Case for War: In Defence of Freedom," a film by Bush administration official Perle, that advocates neoconservative policies and was one of those selected by CPB"


    Gee, who knew :rolleyes:

    It was ceeeensorshippp, the rabid libruls! Only, as pointed out, right wing programs financed by PBS get on the air regularly through PBS - this one however was ineptly shot, edited and a mess that didn't come up to broadcasting standards.

    Again, without seeing it, we can't judge one way or another. Maybe this was a masterpiece and PBS is plotting to keep America away from this gem. Then again, it may be an unbroadcastable pile of poo. We. Don't. Know. I think it is quite irresponsible and premature to scream "censorship" in this case however. That was my entire point.

    You know, it is entirely possible to shoot something so lame and amateurish, that it would be an embarrasment for a professional TV broadcaster to put on the air. Just look at youtube - plenty of unbroadcastable rubbish there. So, as I suspected, this may be the case. You however, only presented one side of the story. Typical of the right wingnut debating style, really.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    I know, I know, after a steady diet of The Murdoch News Channel and Rush, you could be excused for having a hard time accepting that some media outlets still demand balance and quality in their programming.
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #8
    So, PBS should be 'Fair and Balanced?':rolleyes:

    This is a constant refrain from various people and I still don't agree with it. The problem has been that various enterprises, such as Fox News, use the cover of a 'conservative viewpoint' to espouse either a particular opinion or sometimes fabrication. Obviously there's bias, sometimes even political bias, but this mirror frames everything into a political question so that it becomes difficult to discern if the reason a film wasn't released is either a 'liberal' device or just because it was a poorly made movie.

    Odds are, the very framing of this situation will entirely be done along poltical lines. And, this is our real problem, not that PBS decided the film wasn't worth showing now.


    PBS should reflect reality.
     
  9. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #9

    I thought you'd like that article. :) BTW, 'tastic, you continually accuse me of watching/listening to Rush Limbaugh, something I've never done. YOU have probably listened to him more than I have.

    You're right, PBS programming should reflect reality. Although, everyone here knows that reality is a matter of perspective.

    Documentaries seldom are without any slant.

    Was this quote referring to the documentary at hand or was it referring to global warming? ;)
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    How soon we forget Kenneth Tomlinson and the administration's naked efforts to politicize the CPB.
     
  11. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #11
    Well you're keen eyes would have noticed that I didn't post any of the ridiculous conjecture of the "wingnut" site as you put it. The quote was lifted from the Azcentral site which I also put in a later post.
     
  12. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    Just to let you know, the Arizona Republic (azcentral is their online version) isn't exactly the most liberal paper in the country. In fact, it's rather conservative.
     
  13. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #13
    yes, but the graphics are better. :)
     
  14. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #14
    Actually, when you google for this story, most of the top hits are all from the same kind of "sources", with little green snotballs prominent among them... I thought I was exaggerating for effect with my KKK example, but actually, that's pretty much on the mark... ahem, hard to do irony these days, when reality itself is so exaggerated. This story, is repeated pretty much with the same quotes and words in the same collection of redneck and rabid wing nut sites. Does wonders for the credibility.
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    But they are often of excellent quality. Sounds like this had bias AND quality problems. But of course the far-right has no problem pushing it as evidence of how much everyone supposedly hates them.

    Their martyr complex grows daily...
     
  16. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #16
    This is what drives me nuts about how everything is framed as a 'conservative' versus 'liberal'. Even if both myself and obeygiant watched the documentary, we'd still come away with differing opinions because we're so inured to seeing everything through a political lens.

    There's a big difference between bias (slant) and spin. PBS can be biased—often this is the kind of unconscious, unintentional bias that used to be a journalist's problem—but Fox News (and other hosts and acolytes) spins like a top.
    You have to start recognizing the difference.
     
  17. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    Interestingly enough, the article is a good example of journalism. Rather than using a lens, they tried to tell the story. In it, you should note neither Burke or PBS appear perfectly clean in this matter. Burke had two producers who belonged to a known conservative think-tank, and I'm not sure about PBS's relationship with McCloud or her use of rough-cuts of the film. There's obviously more to the story, but the AZ Republic has written a good story. This is the kind of journalism we should need, and not the first link which linked to a hopelessly biased site.
     
  18. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #18
    Well I never mentioned 'spin' and I'm pretty sure I know what the difference is. :)
     
  19. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #19
    Well then why did you start by linking to the hyscience article?

    This is spin:

    and this is reporting:

     
  20. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #20
    See post #11 and post #1.
     

Share This Page