[an error occurred while processing this directive]
RADAR Turns the Tide on Domestic Violence
posted by Matt on 08:03 PM November 9th, 2005
RADAR Project RADAR – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a network of men and women working to assure the domestic violence (DV) issue is addressed in a balanced manner. RADAR was established in early 2005 in response to a series of inflammatory articles that appeared in the Washington Post.

RADAR Turns the Tide on Domestic Violence

Each week, RADAR’s Media Monitors kept tabs on DV coverage in scores of national and local news outlets. When a biased article was spotted, an Alert went out calling on persons around the country to respond. The Alerts were posted at the RADAR website: http://www.mediaradar.org/ and at other key websites.

As the result of the hard-hitting Alerts, RADAR succeeded in curbing the biased depictions of DV in the major print media that were based on the formula of “male = abuser, female = victim.”

Beginning in June, RADAR turned its attention to the Violence Against Women Act. In July we launched our Shock and Awe campaign. Over a four month period, and working in close collaboration with RADAR’s partners, thousands of persons sent faxes, e-mails, and letters, and made phone calls and personal visits to members of the Senate and House of Representatives. Impressive!

RADAR also enlisted a group of columnists to write articles about VAWA: Stephen Baskerville, Richard Davis, Gordon Finley, Mark Rosenthal, Lisa Scott, Mike Spaniola, and David Usher. These articles appeared in the Washington Times and in many internet editorial sites. Other well-known columnists such as Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young, and Phyllis Schlafly also wrote articles that highlighted RADAR’s concerns.

This was the first time in the fathers'/men's movement that such a coordinated and sustained effort to influence national legislation was mounted. A detailed listing of RADAR’s activities and accomplishments is shown at the end of this report.

As a direct result of the outcry from the grass roots and intensive lobbying efforts, both the Senate and House versions of the bill added language designed to clarify that male victims of DV qualify for VAWA services. Currently, VAWA is stalled in Congress and its final outcome is uncertain.

Overall, RADAR succeeded in changing the way the print media portrays the domestic violence issue and in influencing national legislation. But more work is needed, as shown by the recent PBS program, Breaking the Silence.

Many thanks go to RADAR’s Media Monitors, organizational partners, HisSide for its website support, Men’s News Daily, Men’s Activism News Network, and to the thousands of persons who participated in the RADAR campaigns over the past 10 months.

Together we made a difference – and the best is yet to come.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RADAR’s Activities and Accomplishments, January to October, 2005

ACTIVITIES

Issue-Specific Campaigns:

  1. VAWA
  2. Amnesty International
  3. PBS Breaking the Silence

Alerts:

Issued 44 Alerts organized in three phases:

  1. 1. January 16 – June 7: Biased articles in the print media
  2. 2. June 13 – Oct. 9: VAWA
  3. 3. Oct. 17 – Oct. 30: Breaking the Silence

Press Releases: 8

Publications (listed on RADAR website):

  1. Op-Ed Columns and Articles: 46 (this number is known to be an under-count)
  2. Letters to the editor: 10 (also known to be an under-count)

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

  1. Stopped the publication of biased DV articles in the major mainstream print media.
  2. Placed dozens of op-eds favorable to our perspective throughout the men’s rights and internet media.
  3. Helped to generate thousands of phone calls, emails, faxes, letters, and personal visits over a four-month period to elected officials regarding VAWA, resulting in expected changes to VAWA that will recognize men as DV victims.
  4. Generated widespread awareness of RADAR – a Google search of “Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting” brought up 363 hits, including a section on domestic violence in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence
  5. Stimulated broad awareness and concern about PBS’ Breaking the Silence.

Retrial For Andrea Yates | Child support payments upheld by high court  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Thank you RADAR and everyone else (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 11:18 AM November 10th, 2005 EST (#1)
I thank RADAR, Glenn Sacks and all others for their hard and dedicated work on VAWA and PBS. The PBS campaign is having huge impact (visit www.glennjsacks.com for the news). Although we don't know yet how things will turn out in the end with either project, I am very grateful to everyone who put in any amount of work on these projects. Nothing will change without that kind of work and dedication. We need to get serious about transfering yacktion into action.

Marc A.
Re:Thank you RADAR and everyone else (Score:1)
by Ragtime on 12:52 PM November 10th, 2005 EST (#2)
"We need to get serious about transfering yacktion into action. "

Great line, Mark. I love it. :-)

Ragtime

The Uppity Wallet

The opinions expressed above are my own, but you're welcome to adopt them.

I wrote PBS and told them they lost my support (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 01:21 PM November 10th, 2005 EST (#3)
Here is what they sent back:

Dear Concerned Viewer:

Thank you for taking the time to write to PBS about your concerns regarding
BREAKING THE SILENCE: CHILDREN'S STORIES. Comments from our viewers - both
positive and negative - are among the best guides we have to make future
programming decisions.

As you may know, PBS has received emails, letters and calls from across the
country both protesting and praising BREAKING THE SILENCE: CHILDREN'S STORIES.
 
All of us at PBS understand that the issues surrounding domestic abuse and
contested custody are complex and emotionally provocative.

When BREAKING THE SILENCE was reviewed for broadcast, our senior content team
determined that it was based on solid research and met our editorial standards.
We still believe this to be the case.

However, in our role as the nation's trusted public broadcaster, we take very
seriously all comments we receive from the public. For that reason, we have
initiated a review of the research behind and conclusions presented by the
documentary. As part of our review process, we are working with the producers of
the film, Tatge/Lasseur Productions, to ascertain answers to specific questions
posed by viewers. We anticipate concluding our review in 30 days or less (as of
November 8), with a resolution as to PBS' next steps.

PBS remains committed to advancing the highest standard in national programming
on a variety of subjects, and strives to be sensitive to all of our viewers when
preparing programs for broadcast.

As we have noted to many of the individuals who have already contacted PBS about
BREAKING THE SILENCE, we welcome the opportunity to review proposals for other
programs related to this difficult topic. PBS accepts programming from
independent producers from across the country and all over the world to ensure
that our schedule offers a wide range of viewpoints and opinions.

In recent years, PBS has examined the issues of custody, divorce, abuse and
parenting in a variety of programs, including two FRONTLINE reports - "The
Taking of Logan Marr," which tells the story of five-year-old Logan Marr who was
found dead in the basement of her foster mother's home, and "Did Daddy Do It," a
reopening of the case of Frank Fuster, convicted over 20 years ago of sexual
abuse - as well as IN THE MIX "Divorce and Custody: Breaking Apart/Coming
Together," FATHERHOOD USA: DEDICATED NOT DEADBEAT and many other examples.

As public broadcasters we will continue to air programs with unique perspectives
and various points of view. Your feedback helps us to fulfill this mission.

We appreciate your interest in our program and hope you will continue to watch
and support your local PBS station.

Sincerely,
Madison
PBS Viewer Services
viewer@pbs.org

Re:I wrote PBS and told them they lost my support (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 03:44 PM November 10th, 2005 EST (#4)
"Based on solid research" my @$$...!
If it were based on SOLID research they would have gotten the report RIGHT. Which they DID NOT.

It is the fact that it ISN'T based on solid research that has us in a fit, in the first place! Don't they understand, at all?
Or is this just the usual media 'blow off'?
I'm guessing the latter.

  Thundercloud.
  "Hoka hey!"
Re:I wrote PBS and told them they lost my support (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 10:15 PM November 10th, 2005 EST (#8)
Well, the fact is that they got their arse scorched. We know it, they know it, and....in the future they will step gingerly to avoid more of the same. If their response is a "blowoff", then at least it is a more laborious blowoff -- one which cost them more effort, more sweat, than the simple blowoffs they might have done formerly. I find this heartening and encouraging. It is progress.

-Fidelbogen-

Re:I wrote PBS and told them they lost my support (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 02:03 PM November 11th, 2005 EST (#12)
Fidelbogen-
Yes, good point.

  Thundercloud.
  "Hoka hey!"
Re:I wrote PBS and told them they lost my support (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 10:21 PM November 10th, 2005 EST (#9)
Right on Thundercloud. We need to keep the pressure on and not let off. It's nowhere near over.

Marc
Re:I wrote PBS and told them they lost my support (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 03:56 AM November 11th, 2005 EST (#10)
This is great: what they're saying is equivalent to "well, we showed a several programs about the Holocaust, so now it's appropriate that we present a a piece taht supports the position of Holocaust deniers, and we'll look into their claims, maybe, since some of you bitched."

Is that their idea of a balanced perspective? Balancing truth with lies?

Don't beg for my money, PBS, 'cause it's never coming.
Re:I wrote PBS and told them they lost my support (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 02:07 AM November 12th, 2005 EST (#13)
"This is great: what they're saying is equivalent to "well, we showed a several programs about the Holocaust, so now it's appropriate that we present a a piece taht supports the position of Holocaust deniers, and we'll look into their claims, maybe, since some of you bitched."

Is that their idea of a balanced perspective? Balancing truth with lies?

Meaning what? That "Breaking the Silence" was on a par with Holocaust documentation, and that the MRAs who honestly doubt what was presented on the program are to be morally equated with Holocaust deniers?

This comment proves nothing, says precious little, and has no merit whatsoever. But hey, if it helps you blow off steam and feel good......;-}

(Hey, come to think of it, what if.....what IF....(big if!).... somebody actually did discover irrefutable proof that the Holocaust never happened? Since it would surely kick a shitstorm, maybe they should just keep it to themselves?)

-Fidelbogen-

Kenny McCormick (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 03:51 PM November 10th, 2005 EST (#5)
Oh my god! They KILLED KENNY!
You BASTARDS!
Re:Kenny McCormick (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 04:02 PM November 10th, 2005 EST (#6)
Great, now we have someone from SOTH PARK posting here...

  Thundercloud.
  "Hoka hey!"
Re:Kenny McCormick (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 04:03 PM November 10th, 2005 EST (#7)
Oops! I meant "SOUTH park" not "SOTH Park"

  Thundercloud.
Re:Kenny McCormick (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 02:01 PM November 11th, 2005 EST (#11)
...So..., Does "killing Kenny" have anything to do with this discussion, or are you just trolling?

  Jinx
[an error occurred while processing this directive]