Text 1185, 130 rader
Skriven 2006-06-01 16:57:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1631.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Vorlonagent to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <UNIfg.43903$Lm5.31975@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
@REPLY: <mbul72l385asn52fk8ncp3s49hs61e57gl@4ax.com>

"Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message 
news:8ceu72l07cpp4iu3t64rql8jb97q5ma1ej@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:52:28 +0000 (UTC), "Vorlonagent"
> <jt@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
>>During the actual invasion of Iraq in 2003, the commander of the British
>>Carrier Ark Rpyal had the BBC turned off due to the nature and tenor of 
>>its
>>reporting.
>
> I am not surprised. However, the BBC accurately reflected that the
> majority (some 73% at that time) of the British public were *against*
> the Iraq adventure. It is not the BBC's job to parrot the transient
> government in power. It is the BBC's job to mirror the views of its
> customers the British public. It does that extremely well, usually.

It isn't the BBC's job to tell people what they want to hear either.  Their 
job is to *inform* accurately and completely.  At that job they failed.


>>I actually spoke in haste.  I do in fact believe that the BBC is pretty
>>extremely leftist and really shouldn't be hedging my bets. I could point 
>>to
>>the global warming alarmism show you recommend sight-unseen.  Global 
>>Warming
>>is a liberal hobbyhorse.  Raising hysteria over it is a Liberal practice. 
>>A
>>show that makes a point of doing just that can reasonably be considered
>>"liberal" especially if all it does is raise the alarm.  If no balanced
>>discussion exists in the program, if no accounting is made for what 
>>portion
>>of global warming could be nature and what could be human, no discussion 
>>of
>>what is known or unknown, no discussion of the limits of our best computer
>>modeling (or the agenda-driven money that funds nearly all cmputer models
>>whether they affirm or deny global warming) then the program is a 
>>propaganda
>>piece.
>>
>>You tell me how complete its presentation is, how well both sides are
>>represented, and how many important details (such as the mini-ice age of 
>>the
>>1700s) are explored and accounted for.  If it's all CO2 levels and melting
>>ics caps, it's rubbish.
>
> You tell me. The programme is called "Are We Changing Planet Earth?"
> presented by Sir David Attenborough and there is at least one torrent
> of the first programme out there. Don't take my word for it, view it
> first-hand yourself and form your own view independent of any
> "liberal" bias I might have.

Then I will assume it's all CO2 levels and melting ice caps.

The cost charged me for seeing it would be an hour of my life (I have access 
to BBC America). At this point, I assess that cost as too high.  I am open 
to changing that opinion but only in the presence of facts.


>>This sort of shallow examination of the issue combined with alarmism is
>>exactly what I expect from Al Gore's film epic which is why I don't intend
>>to bother seeing it.
>
> While I am happy to disagree with you on a fairly fundamental level,
> and I'm enjoying the discourse (genuinely!) that's the first
> disappointing thing you've said.  :-(
>
> With just about every post in this sub-thread you have been calling
> for evidence, proof, verification.
>
> Yet in that paragraph you condemn something sight unseen. No proof, no
> verification, no evidence. Condemned.  I thought you were better than
> that.

My decision is not without an amount of thought behind it.

I expect Gore to approach his subject from the point of view of advocacy, 
which means ignoring areas of legitimate gray areas such as how much of 
global warming is human-derived, how much is not, flaws and shortcomings in 
computer models that predict global warming and so on.  Without them, 
however, his film becomes a propaganda piece.  If one is attempting to issue 
a Galvanizing Call To Action, and I believe Gore is, then Gore will not 
choose to muddy the film's ability to create that galvinizing effect with 
facts that hurt his case.

Moreover few liberals would want to watch a gray-area sort of discussion.

To make money, a film meeds a target audience and needs to please that 
target audience.  The target audience for Gore's film is liberals and that 
audience will want to see their viewpoint affirmed, not challenged. 
Therefore I expect that Gore made a film that affirmed the liberal point of 
view on global warming.  I already know the the eseentials of that point of 
view, so why spend $5 (matinee price) and two hours of my life taking in a 
multimedia recitation of talking points I already know explained to the Nth 
degree?  The best I could hope for is a few new glossy-presented 
horrorific-sounding factoids.

If Gore has even the merest flicker of renewed presidential ambitions, a 
gray-area-discussion sort of film destroys any momentum Gore might derive 
towards the Presidency.  Worse, a discussion film would hurt his ability to 
connect with the Democrat party's liberal, money-raising ideological 
purists.  Gore would risk being tagged as a heretic to liberal orthodoxy, 
much as Hillary Clinton's lukewarm support for the invasion of Iraq has 
begun to tag *her* as a heretic.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
                                                                               
                    
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)