The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

SHOCKED........"non partisan" PBS selectively edits "documentary" to protect liberal mouthpiece, Ben Affleck.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/media/citing-ben-afflecks-improper-influence-pbs-suspends-finding-your-roots.html?_r=0

I don't get why this is this a big deal? Are you saying that PBS would not have done the same for, say, Bruce Willis? It's not a political show in any shape or form.

Affleck agreed to be a subject for the documentary. Surely he, and any other subject, should have some say over the final product? It's not his fault one of his ancestors owned slaves, but I can understand his discomfort with it. You have little to be getting worked up over.

On a personal note, the wife will be disappointed if it's off the air.  She is big into genealogy and is an avid watcher of this show.

First off..whos getting worked up? I find it both sad and ironic that a great station such as PBS could get maniopulated in this way

Secondly, weve been having a civil discourse about where people get their information from and the fact that every news source tends to have some degree of bias.

Do you not find it amazing and bewildering that they would let a high profile liberal like Ben Affleck essentially cherry pick what he wanted excluded? 

PBS actually does....theyve suspended the show

This is not some newspaper or cable channel hiding or trumping up some political charge or scandal or crime.

It's a show about genealogy where a subject found out something embarrassing about their ancestry and requested it be withheld. The host,  I guess feeling some compassion for him, pulled some strings. Which broke the organizations rules. Which they have now addressed. And that's it! Evidence of liberal bias it is not. Had the same people at the same time refused to do it for Bruce Willis or Clint Eastwood or Dennis Miller, you might have something to complain about.

I guess we'll agree to disagree then

How can yous agree to disagree when yous are both making seperate points and ignoring the point the other makes?

OK, I, unlike whitey, don't find it "amazing" that PBS omitted the piece. I've explained why!

[omaghjoe]

Yeah its hardly "amazing" Whitey, and what is "liberal" got to do with it? Plus it was the shows editor J70 that let it be omitted not the station. He probably thought I'll keep this guy sweet and he could help my career, the station itself moved to address the broken rules, as you've pointed out.
Whitey you are looking at this from a political standpoint when its probably nothing to do with politics whatsoever. This habit of relating everything to politics is a cancer in America ATM & reminds me of some(a lot of) eejits in the wee6. Not calling you an eejit Whitey BTW but try not to fall into that trap.
Its disappointing yes, however it would only be amazing  & bewildering if the station defended it, but they haven't.

On a side note What a twat Affleck is, I dont know much about his politics but he is obviously a total victim of reactionary public opinion, but then he is a celebrity so he is a product of reactionary public opinion, so not really that surprising.

[J70]

Yeah its hardly "amazing" Whitey, and what is "liberal" got to do with it? Plus it was the shows editor J70 that let it be omitted not the station. He probably thought I'll keep this guy sweet and he could help my career, the station itself moved to address the broken rules, as you've pointed out.
Whitey you are looking at this from a political standpoint when its probably nothing to do with politics whatsoever. This habit of relating everything to politics is a cancer in America ATM & reminds me of some(a lot of) eejits in the wee6. Not calling you an eejit Whitey BTW but try not to fall into that trap.
Its disappointing yes, however it would only be amazing  & bewildering if the station defended it, but they haven't.

On a side note What a twat Affleck is, I dont know much about his politics but he is obviously a total victim of reactionary public opinion, but then he is a celebrity so he is a product of reactionary public opinion, so not really that surprising.

Like I said, it is no reflection whatsoever on Affleck that his ancestor was a slave owner. He doesn't espouse those views and he has nothing to be embarrassed about and he should have handled it much better.

On a similar note, the son of Strom Thurmond, Mr Dixiecrat himself, came out and totally repudiated his ancestors roles in a civil war to preserve slavery when calling for the confederate flag to be removed from the state capitol in South Carolina. That's how you handle these things.

[J70]

Fair point J70  it is a little pointless, but sure is is not great criac discussing things that there is no right or wrong or even any answer to? Anyway I think at least this little exercise demonstrates that anything and everything is possible, we just ultimately don't have a clue. In fact the reality is we probably arent capable of understanding our reality. Do you think a suck cow is capable of thinking all this that we do? Course not, so are why we so arrogant to belief that we can understand why we are here and what here really is?

But moving on a little yes we do need a starting point for building a society that we can all springboard everything else from. So is the physical realm really a good place to start considering that society isn't really a physical thing in itself? Morals and Principles are surely the base point of any society, so these are what we should use. Tradition has been the distributor. but then what should the morals and principles be and more importantly who should be their keeper? Religion in practically every society in history has been the traditional keeper of these, however in modern society this would offend secularists. Constitutions and laws attempt to do something similar, but they dont govern how we think, feel and communicate with each other which is really where society is acted out, so who should hold these standards? Of late the press has by default been moving in on this territory as we have demonstrated in the past few pages, and we have pretty much agreed that this is a bad thing. So if not religion and if not the press, should it be Politicians? Lawyers? And if none of these then who? Who or what should be the keeper and driver of societies principles?

However I suspect we probably dont have an answer to that either, so lets move on and assume that our ultimate goal is society that is at peace and happy then the only way to achieve this is by working together and understanding our fellow man, not opposing and vilifying his belief system whether it be theist our naturalist rather we should be finding the common ground.

I don' find the role religion played through history in shaping morality and society, for better or worse, offensive at all. Its a fact.

But today, I just don't think its necessary and, operating in our normal real world where we can actually sense things and make judgements and comparisons, its often detrimental.

This may be a bit simplistic and not fully thought through, for now, but don't society, laws and so on now provide a pretty structured framework built around the golden rule type of idea? Most people don't go around wondering "what would Jesus do?" before acting or saying something. You know what's right, what's wrong. You know what will hurt someone and what won't. Sometimes you'll get caught and pay the legal penalty or get box in the face in return. If we all turned into unbelievers, would things really change? Will Iceman decide to go out and hit someone over the head with a hammer because he is suddenly not concerned about divine judgement? Are all the people who break rules and laws and cheat and steal and murder unbelievers?

[muppet]

SHOCKED........"non partisan" PBS selectively edits "documentary" to protect liberal mouthpiece, Ben Affleck.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/media/citing-ben-afflecks-improper-influence-pbs-suspends-finding-your-roots.html?_r=0

I don't get why this is this a big deal? Are you saying that PBS would not have done the same for, say, Bruce Willis? It's not a political show in any shape or form.

Affleck agreed to be a subject for the documentary. Surely he, and any other subject, should have some say over the final product? It's not his fault one of his ancestors owned slaves, but I can understand his discomfort with it. You have little to be getting worked up over.

On a personal note, the wife will be disappointed if it's off the air.  She is big into genealogy and is an avid watcher of this show.

Of course it is a big deal. Affleck's embarrassment at his slave owning ancestor can now be used relentlessly to justify shooting unarmed black men, promote gun ownership and most especially, to justify every single idiotic thing that Fox News broadcasts.

[whitey]

Yeah its hardly "amazing" Whitey, and what is "liberal" got to do with it? Plus it was the shows editor J70 that let it be omitted not the station. He probably thought I'll keep this guy sweet and he could help my career, the station itself moved to address the broken rules, as you've pointed out.
Whitey you are looking at this from a political standpoint when its probably nothing to do with politics whatsoever. This habit of relating everything to politics is a cancer in America ATM & reminds me of some(a lot of) eejits in the wee6. Not calling you an eejit Whitey BTW but try not to fall into that trap.
Its disappointing yes, however it would only be amazing  & bewildering if the station defended it, but they haven't.

On a side note What a twat Affleck is, I dont know much about his politics but he is obviously a total victim of reactionary public opinion, but then he is a celebrity so he is a product of reactionary public opinion, so not really that surprising.

Well Aagain I'll agree to disagree. Ben Affleck is one of the most outspoken left wing celebrities out there, so for the editor/producer to cave to his request is in my opinion an implicit attempt to maintain Afflecks credibility. Not that he owned or condoned owning slaves, but his detractors on the right would have had a field day with that tidbit.

[whitey]

SHOCKED........"non partisan" PBS selectively edits "documentary" to protect liberal mouthpiece, Ben Affleck.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/media/citing-ben-afflecks-improper-influence-pbs-suspends-finding-your-roots.html?_r=0

I don't get why this is this a big deal? Are you saying that PBS would not have done the same for, say, Bruce Willis? It's not a political show in any shape or form.

Affleck agreed to be a subject for the documentary. Surely he, and any other subject, should have some say over the final product? It's not his fault one of his ancestors owned slaves, but I can understand his discomfort with it. You have little to be getting worked up over.

On a personal note, the wife will be disappointed if it's off the air.  She is big into genealogy and is an avid watcher of this show.

Of course it is a big deal. Affleck's embarrassment at his slave owning ancestor can now be used relentlessly to justify shooting unarmed black men, promote gun ownership and most especially, to justify every single idiotic thing that Fox News broadcasts.

Lol....I'll share that one at tonight's neighborhood  cross burning

[omaghjoe]

Wow Muppet never fails to disappoint .... here was me thinking it was nothing to do with politics

[J70]

Yeah its hardly "amazing" Whitey, and what is "liberal" got to do with it? Plus it was the shows editor J70 that let it be omitted not the station. He probably thought I'll keep this guy sweet and he could help my career, the station itself moved to address the broken rules, as you've pointed out.
Whitey you are looking at this from a political standpoint when its probably nothing to do with politics whatsoever. This habit of relating everything to politics is a cancer in America ATM & reminds me of some(a lot of) eejits in the wee6. Not calling you an eejit Whitey BTW but try not to fall into that trap.
Its disappointing yes, however it would only be amazing  & bewildering if the station defended it, but they haven't.

On a side note What a twat Affleck is, I dont know much about his politics but he is obviously a total victim of reactionary public opinion, but then he is a celebrity so he is a product of reactionary public opinion, so not really that surprising.

Well Aagain I'll agree to disagree. Ben Affleck is one of the most outspoken left wing celebrities out there, so for the editor/producer to cave to his request is in my opinion an implicit attempt to maintain Afflecks credibility. Not that he owned or condoned owning slaves, but his detractors on the right would have had a field day with that tidbit.

Based on what you said, your issue should be that the "right would have a field day" with something that is not his fault or condoned by him.

That aside, you have produced nothing to support your assertion that the show assented due to Affleck's politics.

[muppet]

Wow Muppet never fails to disappoint .... here was me thinking it was nothing to do with politics

Interesting. What is the title of this thread?

[whitey]

Yeah its hardly "amazing" Whitey, and what is "liberal" got to do with it? Plus it was the shows editor J70 that let it be omitted not the station. He probably thought I'll keep this guy sweet and he could help my career, the station itself moved to address the broken rules, as you've pointed out.
Whitey you are looking at this from a political standpoint when its probably nothing to do with politics whatsoever. This habit of relating everything to politics is a cancer in America ATM & reminds me of some(a lot of) eejits in the wee6. Not calling you an eejit Whitey BTW but try not to fall into that trap.
Its disappointing yes, however it would only be amazing  & bewildering if the station defended it, but they haven't.

On a side note What a twat Affleck is, I dont know much about his politics but he is obviously a total victim of reactionary public opinion, but then he is a celebrity so he is a product of reactionary public opinion, so not really that surprising.

Well Aagain I'll agree to disagree. Ben Affleck is one of the most outspoken left wing celebrities out there, so for the editor/producer to cave to his request is in my opinion an implicit attempt to maintain Afflecks credibility. Not that he owned or condoned owning slaves, but his detractors on the right would have had a field day with that tidbit.

Based on what you said, your issue should be that the "right would have a field day" with something that is not his fault or condoned by him.

That aside, you have produced nothing to support your assertion that the show assented due to Affleck's politics.

He gave an explanation as to why he wanted it removed. You believe him, I don't.

Do you have a shred of evidence that he is telling the truth

In fact you yourself, (and me and many others on here) said that a slave owning ancestor is absolutely no reflection on Ben Affleck.

[omaghjoe]

Wow Muppet never fails to disappoint .... here was me thinking it was nothing to do with politics

Interesting. What is the title of this thread?

Well that settles it then, because Whitey posted it in this thread it must be about politics.

J70, you and I stand corrected, there's all the evidence you need.

[J70]

Yeah its hardly "amazing" Whitey, and what is "liberal" got to do with it? Plus it was the shows editor J70 that let it be omitted not the station. He probably thought I'll keep this guy sweet and he could help my career, the station itself moved to address the broken rules, as you've pointed out.
Whitey you are looking at this from a political standpoint when its probably nothing to do with politics whatsoever. This habit of relating everything to politics is a cancer in America ATM & reminds me of some(a lot of) eejits in the wee6. Not calling you an eejit Whitey BTW but try not to fall into that trap.
Its disappointing yes, however it would only be amazing  & bewildering if the station defended it, but they haven't.

On a side note What a twat Affleck is, I dont know much about his politics but he is obviously a total victim of reactionary public opinion, but then he is a celebrity so he is a product of reactionary public opinion, so not really that surprising.

Well Aagain I'll agree to disagree. Ben Affleck is one of the most outspoken left wing celebrities out there, so for the editor/producer to cave to his request is in my opinion an implicit attempt to maintain Afflecks credibility. Not that he owned or condoned owning slaves, but his detractors on the right would have had a field day with that tidbit.

Based on what you said, your issue should be that the "right would have a field day" with something that is not his fault or condoned by him.

That aside, you have produced nothing to support your assertion that the show assented due to Affleck's politics.

He gave an explanation as to why he wanted it removed. You believe him, I don't.

Do you have a shred of evidence that he is telling the truth

In fact you yourself, (and me and many others on here) said that a slave owning ancestor is absolutely no reflection on Ben Affleck.

Now I'm confused. If it was not embarrassment,  why would Affleck not want that to come out?

[dec]

Bristol Palin, Sarah Palins daughter, and abstinence spokeswoman has just announced that she is pregnant with her second child and she is still not married.

[stew]

Yeah its hardly "amazing" Whitey, and what is "liberal" got to do with it? Plus it was the shows editor J70 that let it be omitted not the station. He probably thought I'll keep this guy sweet and he could help my career, the station itself moved to address the broken rules, as you've pointed out.
Whitey you are looking at this from a political standpoint when its probably nothing to do with politics whatsoever. This habit of relating everything to politics is a cancer in America ATM & reminds me of some(a lot of) eejits in the wee6. Not calling you an eejit Whitey BTW but try not to fall into that trap.
Its disappointing yes, however it would only be amazing  & bewildering if the station defended it, but they haven't.

On a side note What a twat Affleck is, I dont know much about his politics but he is obviously a total victim of reactionary public opinion, but then he is a celebrity so he is a product of reactionary public opinion, so not really that surprising.

Affleck is actually very articulate and although I disagree with him on a lot of things he puts himself out there as a celebrity who knows his subject matter, he is a full bore Democrat who tens to pick at the right and is usually right to be fair when speaking to the dark arts that the right employ..........  I just wish he could look at his party in the same light but thats not how it works in tinseltown!