PBS Drivel: Feminist Propaganda Program

Started by Captain Courageous, May 05, 2014, 01:06 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Captain Courageous

There are some very interesting comments made by some of the panelists on this show. You have to wade through a lot of fallacy-ridden, Straw Man arguments to find them, but they can be heard plainly. You'll be very surprised.  :sunny:

Please take special note of the segment about why there aren't more feminist men. Thanks!  :MRm3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhbKG4K_Paw

dr e

The propaganda machine hard at work.   :cyclo: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Captain Courageous

#2
May 09, 2014, 02:21 PM Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 02:23 PM by Captain Courageous
Why no feminist men?

1) Men "don't want to give up the power they already have."

2) They are afraid "they won't be taken seriously."

3) Research shows they are "treated with hostility and suspicion by BOTH men and women."

This is pure paranoid ideation on the part of the feminists writing this program.

CaptDMO


Why no feminist men?

1) Men "don't want to give up the power they already have."
Well, history shows us......
Quote

2) They are afraid "they won't be taken seriously."
Well, history shows us......
Quote


3) Research shows they are "treated with hostility and suspicion by BOTH men and women."
Well, history shows us......
Quote

This is pure paranoid ideation on the part of the feminists writing this program.

Captain Courageous

"Mens Net" TV

MensNet is taped in Westchester County, New York. If you live in the New York City area and want to attend a taping or assist in the production, please call the NCM office at 631-476-2115.

NCM produces programs for MensNet, a New York cable TV talk show devoted to men's issues. On the set of MensNet we have discussed ideas about gender you won't see in the mainstream media.

The goal of MensNet is to embrace controversy with dignity. We seek to entertain our audience with provocative words and ideas. We respect our guests and want them to have a pleasant and productive experience. We encourage debate as long as it remains focused on the issues and doesn't include personal attack. Within the limits of a half-hour, we give our guests the time to express complicated analysis and opinion.

MensNet is the only television show in the United States which focuses on men's issues!

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page18.shtml

CaptDMO

In My Humble Opinion...
One cannot  "embrace controversy with dignity", decorum perhaps. Robert's Rules for Parliamentary Procedure was fine until
"maneuvering", and "new rules" turned the current revisions into a minority, and "unsupported" position emotional  joke.

poiuyt

Here is one from the archives demonstrating an ex-insiders view and growing revulsion of the Biased BBC's disinformation methods and of its having become hostage to lies, to bribes, to the public treasury and to international socialism.

Now this man, Peter Sissons will never claim to be an MRA, a conscientious objector, a sovereign man, an anti-feminist, a conservative, an anti-socialist or and anti-communist but he essentially is all of the above ... and rightly so.   


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html
The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, says Peter Sissons... and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent

Institutionally biased to the Left, politically correct and with a rudderless leadership. This is Peter Sissons' highly critical view of the BBC in his new memoirs, in which he describes his fascinating career over four decades as a television journalist. Here, in the latest part of our serialisation, he reveals how it was heresy at the BBC to question claims about climate change . . .

My time as a news and ­current affairs anchor at the BBC was characterised by weak leadership and poor ­direction from the top, but hand in hand with this went the steady growth of political correctness.

Indeed, it was almost certainly the ­Corporation's unchallengeable PC culture that made strong leadership impossible.

Leadership -- one person being in charge, trusting his or her own judgement, taking a decision and telling others what to do-- was shied away from in favour of endless meetings of a dozen or more ­people trying to arrive at some sort of consensus.

At the newsroom level it became impossible to discipline someone for basic journalistic mistakes -- wrong dates, times and numbers, inaccurate ­on-screen captions and basic political or geographical facts -- for fear of giving offence. You'd never see anyone, to use a technical term, get a b*****king.

There'd be whispers about them. They might even get a black mark at the annual appraisal with their line manager. Sometimes, they might even be ­promoted to a position in which they could do less harm.

But what really concerned me was when the culture of political correctness began to influence what appeared on the screen. Soon after I started on News 24 in 2003, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal returned from the Gulf to a traditional welcome from families and friends at Portsmouth. TV reporters closed in to interview crew members, the vast majority of whom were men.

Of the five vox-pops that featured in the BBC News, four were with women sailors. During my stint of presenting that day I complained about this and asked if we could have some more ­balanced interviews, but in vain.

I have always been in two minds about the value of vox-pops. They can give texture and interest to a story, but unless they are selected with scrupulous impartiality by a conscientious producer, they are worse than a waste of time -- the viewer is deceived, as they were that day.

For me, though, the most worrying aspect of political correctness was over the story that recurred with increasing frequency during my last ten years at the BBC -- global warming (or 'climate change', as it became known when temperatures appeared to level off or fall slightly after 1998).

From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC's coverage of the issue was, and how much more complicated the climate system was than the over-simplified two-minute reports that were the stock-in-trade of the BBC's environment correspondents.

These, without exception, accepted the UN's assurance that 'the science is settled' and that human emissions of carbon dioxide threatened the world with catastrophic climate change. Environmental pressure groups could be guaranteed that their press releases, usually beginning with the words 'scientists say . . . ' would get on air unchallenged.
On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change ­doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn't bat an eyelid.

On one occasion, after the inauguration of Barack Obama as president in 2009, the science correspondent of Newsnight actually informed viewers 'scientists calculate that he has just four years to save the world'. What she didn't tell viewers was that only one alarmist scientist, NASA's James Hansen, had said that.

My interest in climate change grew out of my concern for the failings of BBC journalism in reporting it. In my early and formative days at ITN, I learned that we have an obligation to report both sides of a story. It is not journalism if you don't. It is close to propaganda.

Go Up