Is PBS biased
- Thread starter NCPitt
- Start date
Sorta contradictory, huh?? One mulatto poseur has reignited racial conflict in America. Sharpton is jealous.
All these people saying this deal means peace and is the only way to peace are going to look really odd when the 3rd Israel-Hezollah war starts in the next 24 months after another Hezbollah ambush of an IDF border patrol with shiny new Russian RPGs. And then Hezbollah will fire off all these shiny new expensive Russian short-range missiles bought by Iran and shipped to Lebanon through Syria by Russian soldiers fighting in Syria (there already are Russian soldiers fighting in the front lines in Latakia province and GRU listening posts all over Assad-held territory) so Israel doesn't bomb the shipments. And fight the IDF on the ground with more shiny new Russian RPGs and Russian machine guns and Russian mortars and Russian land mines and shells turned into IEDs. That everyone knows Iran bought from Russia for Hezbollah but no one will acknowledge that (other than US military State Department flunkies in press conferences) because it's inconvenient to the peace at any price you're just a dumb warmonger nyah nyah crowd. Who apparently think that if they keep repeating that their way is the only option for peace that it will not only be true but also actually bring peace. Which again everyone knows it won't but that doesn't matter, it's all theater and that's what matters. Mocking the prime minister of Israel and calling Republicans warmongers is way more important than actual peace.
Wait no they won't, they'll blame Likudniks or Republicans or just drop the act and openly blame the Jews in general.
Gwen Ifill is an idiot.
Last edited:
why do Americans think it's okay for us to arm anyone we want to kill anyone we don't like, but if Iran or another country aids people we are attacking, that Iran is the bad guy?
Ski: Alex, I'll take Conundrums of History for 1000.
Trebeck: Americans.
Ski: What people evidence how it's possible that Germans became Nazis.
Trebeck: Correct. Pick another, Ski.
Ski: Alex, I'll take Conundrums of History for 1000.
Trebeck: Americans.
Ski: What people evidence how it's possible that Germans became Nazis.
Trebeck: Correct. Pick another, Ski.
Since those weapons WILL be used to wage war on us & our allies, we should fight back by trying to prevent that happening. Perhaps we find out that Hezbollah funds the Clinton Foundation?? The first thing to remember is that we ARE at war.
Iran is a beautiful country with wonderful people, and I would like to visit there at some point in my lifetime. They don't want to kill us.
I'm trying to decide if I should be offended or not by this post.
On topic, I didn't realize PBS existed outside of reruns of Sherlock and Call the Midwife.
So, now they are '60s hippies....useless drug-addled liberals. (Lots of redundancies in that sentence.)
I just picked you because I needed someone whom I'd expect, as a liberal, to be more sensitive to the difference between legitimate US military concerns and blatant US corporate imperialism than the typical neocon fan boys on this board.. I meant it as a compliment in that regard.
A film by a Jew living in Iran that shows how well women, Jews and Christians are treated.there, unlike when the US backed Shah created a police state.
Don't Tell My Mother i'm in Iran
No more wars for Israel.
LOL!! "Resisting the New World Order"!!! No chance this is disinformation from those nice folks in Tehran??
Gullible's Travels #12160. I'll be chuckling all day.
So, you're tuning out Alex Jones, and other profiteers who prey on weak minds??Agree. Time to stop listening to those who continually lie to us.
Came from the same company who produced
BAGHDAD BOB IN.....
"What Americans...There Are No Americans"
PBS is Clearly Biased! You can see they are openly rooting for the North in Ken Burns' Civil War series....which is being replayed in prime time on PBS this week BTW.
I know a lot of guys here won't watch it...Can't stand the ending!
I expect nothing less than those who believe propaganda over real history.
'Civil War' Deserves Emmy for Pseudohistory
Mr. Burns neatly pushed the Corwin Amendment under the rug. Early in 1861, the United States Congress presented the amendment to the states for ratification. It permitted the continuation of slavery in the states where it existed. Of the three states that ratified it, two did so after the firing on Fort Sumter - Maryland, a Yankee-occupied state, Ohio and Illinois. Lincoln's own state, Illinois, ratified it in state convention Feb. 14, 1862.
What irony! The Confederate Constitution outlawed the slave trade. Northern states ratified an amendment to the United States Constitution approving of slavery. Logically, the Northern states should have also seceded. So, union, not slavery was the issue...
Mr. Burns saw to it that the camp for Union prisoners at Andersonville, Ga., but not that for Southern prisoners in Elmira, N.Y., was mentioned. Nearly 3,000 Confederates, including many of my cousins, died of exposure, hunger, wounds and disease at Elmira (''Civil War Prison to Get Monument,'' news article, Aug. 12, 1984). What but revenge was the North's excuse for that? The South could not feed itself, let alone the thousands of prisoners Grant refused to exchange. The North had plenty. It would take 11 hours more to counteract Mr. Burns's bias. If there were an Emmy for pseudohistory, ''The Civil War'' would win hands down. Unfortunately, it will probably win an Emmy anyway. Thank goodness for the United Daughters of the Confederacy and organizations like ours to preserve history, not invent it.
Thanks a Lot, Ken Burns
For all its appeal, however, The Civil War is a deeply misleading and reductive film that often loses historical reality in the mists of Burns' sentimental vision and the romance of Foote's anecdotes...
Perhaps most disingenuously, the film's cursory treatment of Reconstruction obscures the fact that the Civil War did not exactly end in April of 1865 with a few handshakes and a mutual appreciation for a war well fought. Instead, the war's most important outcome—emancipation—produced a terrible and violent reckoning with the legacy of slavery that continued well into the 20th century...
Too often, Foote's grand pronouncements and anecdotes become substitutes for more serious consideration of difficult historical dynamics. In the first episode, "The Cause," Foote nearly negates Burns' careful 15-minute portrait of slavery's role in the coming of the war with a 15-second story of a "single, ragged Confederate who obviously didn't own any slaves." When asked by a group of Yankee soldiers why he was fighting, the Rebel replied, "I'm fighting because you're down here," which, according to a smirking Foote, "was a pretty satisfactory answer."
The Documentary Was Biased
There were no saints, and both sides had sinners, but not to hear Ken Burns of Walpole, N.H., the man behind public television's documentary "The Civil War," tell it. No, he says Robert E. Lee, "our favorite general," was "a traitor" who "was responsible for more American deaths than Hitler and Tojo." And in one of the "documentary's" voice-overs, Confederate Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson is described as a "pious, blue-eyed killer," while Abraham Lincoln is dubbed America's "greatest president." Here they go again, rounding up and adding to the usual fictions.
Burns' post-program description of his work made clear what the first night's offering strongly implied: something was amiss; bias was afoot. Whatever else subsequent episodes might show, we would know his pen was poisoned, his camera unfocused.
Victory breeds arrogance. Wartime propaganda becomes peacetime gospel and, eventually, undergoes an inexplicable metamorphosis to become historical fact.
Virginia is a case in point. On April 4, 1861, the Virginia State Convention voted 89 to 45 against secession. On April 17, the vote was 88 to 55 for secession. What happened to change so many minds so quickly? The Burns version says it was the firing on Fort Sumter - a "battle" devoid of fatalities. But Burns has his fiction right and his facts wrong, for it was Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers on April 15 that forced Virginia out of the Union - it was either that or join a federal invasion of the Confederacy.
Lee, like most Americans, North and South, in that tragic time, sided with his family, friends and heritage. He went with his state. But he did not go to wage war. Indeed, fiction notwithstanding, war fever had not gripped the South. There was no cry of "On to Washington," and as late as April 29, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, speaking to the Confederate Congress, mirrored the true popular sentiment: "We desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honor and independence. . . . All we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms."
But that speech and the cause and timing of Virginia's departure are not to be heard in the Burns' version. North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee, which had also voted against secession and had likewise reversed their votes, also did so rather than attack their sister states.
Of note, these four late-seceding states nearly doubled the population of the Confederacy, a fact that can only be seen as the result of a colossal political blunder on the part of Lincoln. He had other choices - a blockade being paramount among them - that might have brought the seven seceding states back into the fold without forcing the other four out. But Lincoln did not even entertain such an idea, and certainly he paid no attention to Davis' plea for "peace at any price." Yet Burns blames the American holocaust on Lee and calls Jackson a "killer."
History according to Burns is not just wrong history; it is superficial and fleeting, a quick glimpse as if he were acknowledging its inability to withstand scrutiny. He has given narration to a picture book, and one can almost see those still, tragic faces cringe at the thoughts and motives he has placed in their hearts.
He has bought in to the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" version of slavery, without stating that 432,586 people - according to the 1860 census - were held as slaves in the states remaining in the Union, slaves which Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free. Burns' version only admits the fact, not the magnitude of this hypocrisy.
He does acknowledge that most of the men in the Confederate Army were not slaveholders, but he does not tell the extent of non-involvement: 75 percent of all Southerners were not associated directly or by family with slavery, yet Burns makes clear that these people were fighting to preserve that "peculiar institution." In fact, the Southern soldier was fighting for independence against an invading army. So significant was this point that large numbers of them refused to carry the war to Northern soil, notably in the Antietam Campaign of 1862.
The propagandist's crooked thread wends its way through this production. Ken Burns has made war against defenseless, silent pictures. He has opened old wounds with old lies and defamed a generation of Americans.
A letter to the editor from the President of the New York chapter of the Daughters of the Confederacy? No irony there huh? She must be pretty old if her daddy fought for the "glorious cause"!I expect nothing less than those who believe propaganda over real history.
'Civil War' Deserves Emmy for Pseudohistory
Mr. Burns neatly pushed the Corwin Amendment under the rug. Early in 1861, the United States Congress presented the amendment to the states for ratification. It permitted the continuation of slavery in the states where it existed. Of the three states that ratified it, two did so after the firing on Fort Sumter - Maryland, a Yankee-occupied state, Ohio and Illinois. Lincoln's own state, Illinois, ratified it in state convention Feb. 14, 1862.
What irony! The Confederate Constitution outlawed the slave trade. Northern states ratified an amendment to the United States Constitution approving of slavery. Logically, the Northern states should have also seceded. So, union, not slavery was the issue...
Mr. Burns saw to it that the camp for Union prisoners at Andersonville, Ga., but not that for Southern prisoners in Elmira, N.Y., was mentioned. Nearly 3,000 Confederates, including many of my cousins, died of exposure, hunger, wounds and disease at Elmira (''Civil War Prison to Get Monument,'' news article, Aug. 12, 1984). What but revenge was the North's excuse for that? The South could not feed itself, let alone the thousands of prisoners Grant refused to exchange. The North had plenty. It would take 11 hours more to counteract Mr. Burns's bias. If there were an Emmy for pseudohistory, ''The Civil War'' would win hands down. Unfortunately, it will probably win an Emmy anyway. Thank goodness for the United Daughters of the Confederacy and organizations like ours to preserve history, not invent it.
Thanks a Lot, Ken Burns
For all its appeal, however, The Civil War is a deeply misleading and reductive film that often loses historical reality in the mists of Burns' sentimental vision and the romance of Foote's anecdotes...
Perhaps most disingenuously, the film's cursory treatment of Reconstruction obscures the fact that the Civil War did not exactly end in April of 1865 with a few handshakes and a mutual appreciation for a war well fought. Instead, the war's most important outcome—emancipation—produced a terrible and violent reckoning with the legacy of slavery that continued well into the 20th century...
Too often, Foote's grand pronouncements and anecdotes become substitutes for more serious consideration of difficult historical dynamics. In the first episode, "The Cause," Foote nearly negates Burns' careful 15-minute portrait of slavery's role in the coming of the war with a 15-second story of a "single, ragged Confederate who obviously didn't own any slaves." When asked by a group of Yankee soldiers why he was fighting, the Rebel replied, "I'm fighting because you're down here," which, according to a smirking Foote, "was a pretty satisfactory answer."
The Documentary Was Biased
There were no saints, and both sides had sinners, but not to hear Ken Burns of Walpole, N.H., the man behind public television's documentary "The Civil War," tell it. No, he says Robert E. Lee, "our favorite general," was "a traitor" who "was responsible for more American deaths than Hitler and Tojo." And in one of the "documentary's" voice-overs, Confederate Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson is described as a "pious, blue-eyed killer," while Abraham Lincoln is dubbed America's "greatest president." Here they go again, rounding up and adding to the usual fictions.
Burns' post-program description of his work made clear what the first night's offering strongly implied: something was amiss; bias was afoot. Whatever else subsequent episodes might show, we would know his pen was poisoned, his camera unfocused.
Victory breeds arrogance. Wartime propaganda becomes peacetime gospel and, eventually, undergoes an inexplicable metamorphosis to become historical fact.
Virginia is a case in point. On April 4, 1861, the Virginia State Convention voted 89 to 45 against secession. On April 17, the vote was 88 to 55 for secession. What happened to change so many minds so quickly? The Burns version says it was the firing on Fort Sumter - a "battle" devoid of fatalities. But Burns has his fiction right and his facts wrong, for it was Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers on April 15 that forced Virginia out of the Union - it was either that or join a federal invasion of the Confederacy.
Lee, like most Americans, North and South, in that tragic time, sided with his family, friends and heritage. He went with his state. But he did not go to wage war. Indeed, fiction notwithstanding, war fever had not gripped the South. There was no cry of "On to Washington," and as late as April 29, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, speaking to the Confederate Congress, mirrored the true popular sentiment: "We desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honor and independence. . . . All we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms."
But that speech and the cause and timing of Virginia's departure are not to be heard in the Burns' version. North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee, which had also voted against secession and had likewise reversed their votes, also did so rather than attack their sister states.
Of note, these four late-seceding states nearly doubled the population of the Confederacy, a fact that can only be seen as the result of a colossal political blunder on the part of Lincoln. He had other choices - a blockade being paramount among them - that might have brought the seven seceding states back into the fold without forcing the other four out. But Lincoln did not even entertain such an idea, and certainly he paid no attention to Davis' plea for "peace at any price." Yet Burns blames the American holocaust on Lee and calls Jackson a "killer."
History according to Burns is not just wrong history; it is superficial and fleeting, a quick glimpse as if he were acknowledging its inability to withstand scrutiny. He has given narration to a picture book, and one can almost see those still, tragic faces cringe at the thoughts and motives he has placed in their hearts.
He has bought in to the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" version of slavery, without stating that 432,586 people - according to the 1860 census - were held as slaves in the states remaining in the Union, slaves which Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free. Burns' version only admits the fact, not the magnitude of this hypocrisy.
He does acknowledge that most of the men in the Confederate Army were not slaveholders, but he does not tell the extent of non-involvement: 75 percent of all Southerners were not associated directly or by family with slavery, yet Burns makes clear that these people were fighting to preserve that "peculiar institution." In fact, the Southern soldier was fighting for independence against an invading army. So significant was this point that large numbers of them refused to carry the war to Northern soil, notably in the Antietam Campaign of 1862.
The propagandist's crooked thread wends its way through this production. Ken Burns has made war against defenseless, silent pictures. He has opened old wounds with old lies and defamed a generation of Americans.
An article from a revisionist history buff and an article from a Va. newspaper. Pretty damning evidence there!
Well I'll see your blog and raise you one......
http://w-dervish.blogspot.com/2014/05/causes-of-civil-war-according-to-ken.html
Confederate wannabe's shouldn't be sore losers, just being losers is quite enough!
As usual, a liberal never can deny the facts presented. They just demean the source.
Because insults are all you have.
Only a conservative would think that credibility plays zero role in determining the weight given to supporting evidence.
Why are the sources I listed less credible than Ken Burns, an acknowledged liberal.
Pretty simply actually, if the southern losers wanted to write the history of the war, they should have fought harder!
Or maybe God judged the relative value of each cause and decided that the North should win? Doesn't he intercede in such matters from time to time?
That sure sounds like you're agreeing that history as you believe it and presented by Ken Burns is biased.
Aren't you agreeing that the winners write the history?
