|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The book does have a chapter entitled "Targeting Men" which among other things, talks about how men's issues are reported on differently or not at all as compared to women's news issues. It also goes into details concerning a story he did on men who are forced to pay child support for children that are not theirs based on default judgements, even after DNA testing proves them not to be the father. Most troubling was that after Bernard Goldberg reported on this situation on the program, "Public Eye," even though ratings reflected that this program had 10 million viewers, they only got two calls commenting on the insaneness of the practice... from two men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday December 12, @10:42PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
There's a pretty good chapter called "picking on men" or something like that. Among other things it talks about how District Attorney Gil Garcetti in Los Angeles was forcing men to pay support for a child, that he proved wasn't his own, if the man was even one day late in replying to a paternity notice. Goldberg mentions Warren Farrell in the book too, which was a great plug because the book sold well and was a NY Times bestseller. The book is very good. It exposes the general liberal bias of the media and explains how it isn't so much conspiratorial or even necessarily conscious but simply that the industry tends to attract people of liberal persuasion and they take on a bias as they write for their own connections, etc. I like the fact that he writes it in a way that it is fair and is not offensive to liberals, in that it is not written to liberal ideology itself but to expose the liberal bias of the media and demonstrate how powerful it is and why it needs to be known. The book is also entertaining. Goldberg has fun exposing details about Dan Rather in particular, and the other major media figures and anchors too. It tells a very good story about what's going on on the inside. I'm surprised I'm writing this much about it. I guess I just happened to have liked the book alot and, even though I have liberal leanings, I appreciate the book's honesty, and as I said before, my being liberal leaning doesn't mean I want my media to be biased.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first time I saw Goldberg on one of the CBS news shows doing a report about anti-man bias, I said to myself, (knowing about the media's anti-male biases) "Whoa, This guy's skatein' on thin ice!" Sure enough, little by little his appearances became fewer and fewer as he did one report after the other about anti-male bias, until one day he did a report on the MEDIA'S anti-male bias! Then he disapeared for a long time.
To the best of my knowledge, Bernard Goldberg was "disiplined" by CBS for haveing the gull to do such a report! He was SUSPENDED!!
Later I saw him one last time, then he was gone.
CBS, at least at the time, had no comment as to why Goldberg had "left".
I find it very interesting that a media that constantly preaches to the rest of us about "tolerance" is always so IN-TOLERANT.
But then, as we all know the media practices "SELECTIVE tolerance!" therefore, their tolerance does NOT include men. (obviously.)
Something else. I love the way the media 'Poo-poos' Goldberg's assertion that the media "attracts a certain mind-set."
I.E. a "liberal mentality." They'll say things like; "That isn't possible!" And then turn right around and say something like; "The N.R.A. attracts a CONSERVITIVE mentality!"
Also, the fact that they support, openly, EVERY single LIBERAL CAUSE under the sun, particularly the most 'radical' liberal causes, is frankly a DEAD give-away of the media's liberal leaning!
I mean it's like walking up to a Duck and saying to it, "You're a Duck!" and the Duck replies, "No I'm not!" Then makes every arguement possible to convince you he is something other than a Duck. Includeing attacking you personaly for accuseing him of BEING a Duck!
Like Marc, I too have at least some "liberal leanings", But BIAS is BIAS! I don't care which way it slants.
I just wish there were more folks out there like Bernie Goldberg who have the stones to stand up to the media and expose them for what they really are. Goldberg is a man to be honored and thanked for his efforts. Efforts that ultimately cost him his job.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I concur 100%. Though I tend now to lean conservative, there are still some issues on which I regard myself as more liberal than your garden variety Republican. All I want from the media is balanced news. I'll read commentary that's marked as commentary, but make sure you keep the two separate and well-marked. Let me make my own decisions.
Here's an example: In this morning's Trenton Times, page three, there is a headline that reads "Neil Bush: I Bluffed My Way Through School." Prejudicial headline, isn't it? This paper has quite a pronounced liberal/feminist slant. They print both Ellen Goodman AND Maureen Dowd, but no pro-masculine writers, except of course for the occasional letter from me (:-)) It turns out that Bush was dyslexic, but still managed a measure of academic success. He was visiting a local school for kids with reading disabilities.
Another example: On August 3, 2001, the Washington Times reported a) that the Bush White House payroll included some of the highest salaries ever, and b) that the total payroll for the Bush White House was less than that of the Clinton White House. On August 5, 2001, two days later, CNN Headline News reported that that the Bush White House payroll included some of the highest salaries ever. That's it. They reported half of the story: the half that disparaged the Republican administration.
It's bad enough when "researchers" put out biased studies, but when the reporting on those studies adds to the camoflage, then the bias morphs into commentary. The trouble is, they don't even tell you which is which. Selcetive reporting is so rampant that I just regard all of it as commentary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank.
And something else that's interesting.
This whole flap about (republican) Trent Lott being a bigot. Everyone is saying he should step down for being "prejudice". (and maybe he should)and the media is all over this story, But not one thing do they report about (democrat) Nancy (the palooka) Pelosi and the deep roots of her bigotry.
Biased, Biased, Biased!
I guess it's because, as far as the media's conserned "certain" prejudices are okay..., And we, all here, know which prejudices those are! (wink, wink.)
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the book, BIAS, it knows how to tap in the vein of menace behind the mic...It does have a point there in some parts, these feminazis seem to grope men where it hurts when they whine and growl about the 1-in-4-rape-coop! What's even worse is that they've even used that Super-Bowl-wifebeater-assfault, which has now fueled hard rock artists like Nickelback["Never Again" from Silver Side Up], Saliva["Always" from Back Into Your Stereo], Breaking Point["Angry Side" from Coming Of Age], and last but not least Spike 1000["Manhore" from Waste Of Skin] to pitch in their two cents for singing about domestic violence...and horrifically speaking, they all've paid off! And lastly, when it comes to daddy left me, and he better not comeback or else I'll kill him, they sure do have an Eminem mentality without a "guilty conscience"!
Overall, the book has a bittersweet truth with an honest message...when on camera, you know you can't get none, but you need to learn to get some...fifteen seconds of fame, feminist fame!!!!
That's a rap!
Emmanuel Matteer Jnr.
Emanslave@aol.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!!!*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 13, @07:31PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
A rapper who works with young students on the East Coast told me about the anti-male bias he sees in a lot of commentary about rap (usually from white, upper-class women), and some female rappers/spoken word types. He's working with his kids to do male-positive rap (which, of course isn't anti-women). He's a great leader, and you should know that at least there's one out there.
I don't want to say any more about who he is 'cause I don't want to make him a target for lurking feminazis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would mind knowing if you'd share it with me privately at fhujber@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody who thinks that the American media is stricken with liberal bias needs to pull their heads out of their asses. In the 2000 campaign the "liberal" media constantly repeated lies about the "fib factor" of Gore while ignoring Bush's attempt to TAKE CREDIT FOR A BILL HE VETOED while he was the govenor of texas!
Just realize that 99% of American media sucks all ass. Doesn't eveyone have fond memories of the endless regurtitated stories about Princess Diana and OJ Simpson? If you just want the facts, read the AP. If you want balanced commentary on the news watch the News Hour on PBS, or sometimes the BBC. If you want dumbed down, spoon fed news presented to you, watch NBC or CBS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote:
"If you want dumbed down, spoon fed news presented to you, watch NBC or CBS."
My reply:
That's a fact. Those who relish the sound bites of main stream media have an abundance of bite marks on their butts as a result of being misinformed, partially informed or uninformed.
It is a lot of work to stay fully informed these days, but there is no substitute for the more time consuming task of staying "well read" on the events affecting us.
Those who suckle on the "glass tit" for their information need to be weaned and move on to the more staple nourishment aquired from the printed word.
It's harder to digest, but the substance is a lot more conducive to sound intellectual growth.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 15, @01:06AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm contemplating becoming one of the un-informed. I can't take the stress of knowing the things I know~!
Jesse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"From those who have been given much of them much will be demanded. From the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be ask."
Ignorance was bliss, but it didn't last. Even ignorance was no insurance that those same ideologues who gave us big sister's ministry of persecution wouldn't eventually come around for the lowliest of threats when they decide "his" number was up.
Every mans life is still in danger whether he knows it yet or not. It is the business of the following industries: domestice violence, child support, paternity fraud, divorce, child custody, etc. to seize upon wholesome, good, sound men and tear them down to the broken, homeless and dejected humanity that they have brought us to thus far.
As sadder, but wiser men we have awoken to the light of a new day aware of the great evil of radical feminism that lurks among us intent on the destruction of all men. We cannot go back even if we wanted to.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
((("Every man's life is still in danger whether he knows it yet or not.")))
You got that right, Ray.
The Dinosaurs didn't see that asteroid comeing, but it still wiped them out.
"The complacency of fools will destroy them."
(Proverbs.)
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
