Post "nightline" musings
Offline We had tried to have this conversation in chat last night but the lag was horrible. Anyway, watching the debate it was clear that while Brian and Kelly made some moderate mistakes which are normal to people new to debate...the match was a slaughter and Ray and Mikey, er Kirk...were left bleeding and wounded.
So what happened when Nightline condensed and packaged the story for national TV? Many things to be expected and some not. First, the understory became about Kirk Cameron, his website, his career. When it came time to introduce Comfort, he was only mentioned briefly. Then, when Mentioning sapient, he set the tone early..."Runs the so called Rational Response Squad". This is a disparagement, pure and simple. Why?
Then, we are shown clips of the debate that are designed to lead the viewer to believe that there was actually a match. No deer in the headlight moments, no obvious audience support towards RR, nothing...just a run of the mill Debate. Next, we are told "the were no clear winners". WTF??????????? There was, as anyone who has EVER been around any debate activity knows, a clear winner. WOTM had a premise, that they could prove scientifically that god exists, and to that end they failed miserably and embarassingly. One would have to ask why Bashir would spin it like this???
After the debate, we are treated to signs of Shrill Friel and Sapient arguing outside, etc. T he scenes shown of the atheists seem disorganized and confrontational. Then we are shown Cameron calmly saying he hoped that something happened to change Kelly and Brian because he cared about them. Then this "EVEN the atheists seemed concerned about the tone..."
Even the atheists? Try that with "even the blacks, Jews,Catholics,protestants, etc. Nightline was showing their cards...again.
Then we are shown Bashir, comfort and Cameron sitting comfortably backstage and Bashir commenting that their work was "thankless". Comfort was making excuses, and Cameron, with his hair tossed, his frustrated look on his face, and his lack of ability to coherently comment, looked like someone just beat him up for his lunch money.
So why would Nightline spin the debate like this? A quick perusal of Wiki's page on Bashir......
He worked for the BBC until 1999 on programmes including Songs of Praise, Public Eye and Panorama and then he joined ITV, working on special documentary programmes and features for Tonight with Trevor McDonald. Bashir has also appeared in the film Mike Bassett: England Manager, where he played himself. He is a devout Christian[1].
So Bashir had a hidden agenda it seems.
Bashir was also accused of spinning the Michael Jackson intervew, leaving out pertinent information and statements.
what does Bashir's countrymen think of him?
In May 2003, he was voted the 5th worst Briton in Channel 4's poll of the 100 Worst Britons.
And so it goes in the world of being an atheist. Even when you get invited to a debate and embarrass the competetion, hands down demonstrating that the affirmative could not even begin to demonstrate their case...the debate is spun into a draw, the atheists are accused of being nasty, and the national television network doesn't even try to impartially judge the event.
Congratulations anyway to Brian and Kelly. The debate was a one sided slaughter, You made us proud, and I am sure you will learn from this encounter as you move forward.
Bashir is a journalist, it's his job to get as many bums on seats as possible. Since America is 75& Christian what did you expect?
As for the 100 worst Britons. Please. That's just a daft poll conducted by Channel 4.
Here's the top 10:
Tony Blair (* 67th)
Jordan
Margaret Thatcher (* 16th)
Jade Goody
Martin Bashir
Gareth Gates
Alex Ferguson
Ian "H" Watkins from Steps
Geri Halliwell
Queen Elizabeth II (* 24th)
It's whoever the public hates at that moment in time. Bashir got it in the neck for his somewhat unflattering portrayal of Michael Jackson. The list shows how ridicuous it is to take it seriously.Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
What did I expect? A journalist conducting a debate to be honest about the outcome, to not try to spin it in one direction, and to report it without a tinge of yellow.
Moderating a debate requires that you leave your personal bias at the front door. Your premise seems to be that we should have expected nightline to spin it. This belies your ignorance about debate and the expected conduct of a moderator. When the moderator is given editorial power, his responsiblity is increased dramatically.
Bashir has discredited himself to moderate any future debates. If you don't understand why, then I suggest you start here....
http://www.idebate.org/thepeoplespeak/documents/TPSToolkit2006.pdf
Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use Law, EFF.
Anyone know if they are going to post the full, unedited, version of the debate online? What ABC put on TV last night was almost a waste of time as it gave the impression there was "no clear winner" but that shouldn't be the job of a moderator to indicate - let us see the full debate and make up our own minds.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Then you're naive beyond belief. TV programs are about ratings, nothing else.
No, son. It belies your ignorance about TV and the way the world works.
Do you really live in la la land?
I understand the principles of deabte. I also understand that don't get a level playing field a lot of the time. Considering this I thought the RRS guys did pretty well.
So, please, spare us the wounded democracy bollocks. This is real life.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Bash did actually hit on the WOTM lads a bit hard during the debate, and RRS to a lesser extent, however, you should realise that once over, he was back doing his job as a reporter for a major news channel in a highly competitive industry. If he were to say or cut in the a way that said flat out that the atheists kicked their ass, the amount of people interested in the debate would of dropped and so would the channels fundy viewership. Ok, so it was christian appeasement, but that was almost to be expected, it was no CNN farce, the full thing is still up there. I'm still disgusted on how WOTM tried to ignore the fact they lost and bring attention to how the atheists were not quiet little submissive puppies. It felt like one huge post-debate ad hominem if I get the concept correctly. ‘Lets completely ignore our failure and not listen to the big bad atheists, we should have our ass-backwards ideas respected and not questioned! ‘
-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.
First, don't call me 'son' you smarmy little prick. I am probably old enough to be your father.
Wether TV's bias reflects 'real life' or not isn't the point which again flew right over your head.
Any debate, whether televised or not, REQUIRES that the moderator act in a certain fashion. That tv journalists violate this requirement is not a surprise, but I felt it important enough to point out and discuss. That the debate was such a one sided victory and was portrayed as at best a draw on nightline, is a very good topic for this forum. Bashir did an okay job of moderating the debate until he got into editorial mode, where he dropped the ball, reflected his personal bias, and ultimately lied about the outcome. This wasn't a draw by anyone's assessment. Bashir wasn't just spinning when he stated that, he was lying.... Even sworn enemies of the RR squad are declaring it a victory for Brian and Kelly.
Lastly, You haven't earned the right to come on here and be condescending...so stick it up your arse.
Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use Law, EFF.
I was so pissed when I watched that on TV.
My partner was shocked to see the way that they edited the debate for general consumption. Having watched the bits on their web site she and I were out right dumbfounded when they did everything they could to make it seem like Ray and Kirk hadn't been solidly trounced.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
What would one expect of the American TV? I'm so glad we live in a time were we have the internet to inform ourselves!
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
the debate sucked. not many seats and not many of them filled. i'm sure the atheists won convincingly, they always win debates, and it's too bad nightline made it look "close."
what was the deal with cameron's pictures of bullfrogs and other conjoined animals? was that supposed to be a sincere argument against evolution? nightline must have shown it out of context because it made no sense.
i'm confused, are the two atheists really named sapient and (i forget her weird dungeons and dragons name)? i hope not.
her cleavage undermines the atheist point of view in the same way a gay guy in a g string at the pride parade ruins it for the normal gays. her red hair and overall goth/suicide girl look is not helping things. i don't care if that's who she is, if that's who she is, then pick someone else to be the face of atheism.
and the atheist guy seems creepy. there is something kind of joe francis about him. and he dates the goth chick, right?
i resent these two. no one was willing to step up and be THE atheist, so we are left with these two zeros. kind of like how blacks are stuck with jackson and sharpton. (it was funny when goth/cleavage chick got tongue tied in the debate and tried to work her way out of it and ended up stammering something about "....you know, history."
maybe ricky gervais, christopher hitchens, bill maher or david cross will decide to put you guys out of business one day and make a better website. one that doesn't ask people to donate money to it, which by the way is one of the more unattractive aspects of religion.
you guys are creepy.
I doubt it unless you're close to 60. As for little, I'm 6'4" and weigh 240lbs.
Good. It shows they can go against the odds and win. That kind of makes it even more effective.
L
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
I see both sides here. The bottom line is that this was a tv show, and as such, cleavage (or what I prefer to refer to as "heavenly firmament"
is just as appropriate as Kirk Cameron's appearance and their duck-and-crocodile show they trotted out. There was a fair amount of farce in play. Both sides took things seriously, but each side didn't take the other seriously, and I personally found that wildly entertaining.
I'm not sure what people expected.... Brian and Killy to convince Comfort to abandon religion? IMO, the show was incredibly helpful regardless of who "won" -- it is helping push the debate on religion and its value into the mainstream. This is ultimately the best we can hope for at this point (since atheists are such a minority). We don't really even need to win the argument to score a huge victory. Any time scrutiny is applied to mythology, rationality wins.
In reality, the ONLY way Comfort and Cameron could have won is if they would have been able to convert Brian and Kelly to christianity on live TV. Anything short of that was a failure. And ironically, their ego; their need for attention and power and influence has served as the key to open the door to shine light on the fantasy that is religion. Let them think they won. Let them invite more atheists into the spotlight to debate issues. This is a win-win situation for free thinkers.
Fuck no you can't, not while I'm paying for the posts. Don't backtalk greg again.
He's not the man he wants you to think he is. Go to The Real John McCain to learn about the double talk express. View these videos about John McCain to learn about the flip-flopping double talker. Help me get rid of a transferable credit with Southwest Airlines and you'll save $60.
If this post is a duplicate, my apologies.
If we consider only the initial focus of the debate which was ostensibly for Ray and Kirk to prove the existence of God then the mistakes made by Killy and Sapient were excusable because the godbotherers failed. However the debate was not restricted to the initial focus. The vast majority of the debate was Killy and Sapient defending themselves against the Kirk and Ray show. Instead of pressing their advantage, Killy and Sapient let Kirk and Ray take the offence. This was a mistake.
Most of the comments made by Kirk and Ray were opportunities missed to show how dishonest creationists such as Kirk and Ray really are. Kirk made a number of quote mines, expressed some obvious scientific disinformation, and made claims that have been debunked so frequently they are famous. Both Killy and Sapient showed a horrible lack of science knowledge.
Please, people, before you take on any more slick, skilled con men such as Kirk and Ray, take the time to hone your skills at places like talkorigins and RichardDawkins.net. People like K&R will always focus on evolution, it is important that everyone, including you, learn as much about evolution and how to counter creationist arguments in that field as possible. They are as much anti-science as they are anti-atheist, they will alway bring science into the argument. If you do not have a command of the subjectyou will come off looking like you are unprepared and out of your league, which is exactly what happened during the last half of the debate.
You have available many resources on the web, including hundreds of scientists and lay people with years of experience debating YECs and IDiots. Use those resources.
{mod edit: deleted double post}
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the bible.
You've been doing this for ten years?!? Gee, maybe it's time to admit debating ain't your thang...son.
__| ]2 U ]{ /\__]\[ /\ ]\/[ | ]\[ () ]2 |__
Actually, most of us here consider ourselves "agnostic atheists" because we don't know if a god exists or not.
I will think for you.
Atheist Atheism Agnostic, Rational Response Squad
Slander is a spoken, malicious falsehood, so it is unlikely anyone here will slander you, and if they do, you are unlikely to hear it. Libel is also unlikely, since you are probably not famous, and would have a hard time convincing a judge that your career was damaged by anything written about you here.
Having said that, you should notice that there are lots of forums here, and each has a description of what content is appropriate. This forum is not for discussions of atheist vs. theist. I wonder which forum that discussion would fit best in...
Which one could it be?
hmmm...
Anyway, I hope to see you post in a more appropriate forum, where I promise, my job as moderator is to make sure nobody commits libel. I can't do much about slander, though. You're on your own there.
If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: 'Have they discovered evolution yet?' -- Richard Dawkins
Indeed.
Atheist Atheism Agnostic, Rational Response Squad
Ok, first of all apologies to Greg - I was out of order. Of coure, calling someone a "smarmy little prick" isn't going to endear you to them.
But, yeah. Could have handled it better.
Secondly, Iruka and AA - Me being an arsehole from time to time doesn't remove the validity of my points nor does it make me a poor debater. If you want to test that theory then feel free to engage me in one.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
The smarmy prick comment came after your condenscending remarks, only after I pointed out you seem a bit ignorant on how debate works.
FYI, saying someone is ignorant about something is not an insult to an educated person. We are all ignorant...calling someone stupid is an insult, but ignorant only denotes that you haven't been exposed to whatever is being discussed. I still think you are either ignorant of how debate works, or you missed my point entirely.
That being said...apology accepted. Your opinions are as valid as anyone else's here, but we all have a long history together and coming to a new board and insulting people is not a good way to gain crediblity. Why don't we start over?
The point I was making, again..is that Bashir slanted the outcome of the debate with creative editing, that Bashir has a background in creative editing and also is a 'devoted' christian, ...and that it sucks that he did that, and it really disqualifies him from holding himself out as a debate moderator. Hell, he didn't even have a cross examination period in the debate. His editing and final product was a horrid hack job and clearly he was doing damage control for 'his' side...the christians.
He should in the future just call them discussions. That would be more appropriate. The original debate was moderated okay (I wouldn't say good because again..he didn't do it right) but to call the final product that ended up on nightline a debate is an insult to the entire debating process.
Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use Law, EFF.
Fair enough.
I'm not ignorant of the rules of debate, honest. It's just that this particular debate was never going to be played by the rules.
Consider:
Bashir is a TV anchorman on a network that is predominately watched by Christians. The purpose of an anchorman - and editor in this case - is to put together a package that will appeal to his audience and the show's sponsors.
If I'm being honest I don't think it was ever Bashir's intention to present an impartial show. As has been mentioned, he kind of has a track record of manipulating his subjects to give a watchable outcome - the Jackson documentary was an example of this although he did get his fingers burnt there.
If I'm being cynical - which let's face it, I am - I would even say that he selected the protagonists specifically to set up a scenario where it could appear that militant atheists were 'bullying' poor Christians. After all - and no disrespect to the RRS crew who minced them - Comfort and Cameron aren't exactly heavyweights.
As it was RSS did really well with no serious own goals.
In summary: This was never going to be a fair debate by the rules but RSS won anyway. It's all good.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Since when is "Kelly" a D&D name? Is there a fifth-level orc named Kelly that I'm not aware of? I shall have to consult my husband's vast D&D library and find out.
FYI, Brian "Sapient" and Kelly don't use their real names because asswipe Christians who follow Jesus's gospel of love and acceptance like to threaten them with physical harm because they don't believe in the living Christ. Nice. I'd use a pseudonym, too.
Exactly. The very fact that it's now viewed as "okay" for such an event to take place is an enormous victory for reason. The fact that nobody was portrayed as saying, "Well, clearly Christianity won again, as everybody knew it would" is reason to celebrate. The fact that this was broadcast on national television and that the media paid so much attention to it means that the job is just starting, and that more opportunities will arise in the future.
V IS FOR VICTORY. I ought to crack open a bottle of champagne, now that I think about it. Seriously - there was no "winner" (even though Cameron and Comfort's arguments were utterly crushed) and Brian and Kelly clearly need more experience in debating before they're going to be free of criticism, but reason won just because it happened.
Exactly again.
Kirk and Ray, please do again. We want a rematch.
Edited: Since everybody's friends again, no need for a sassy comment from gary7.
I'll just say, INTERNETS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.
EDIT: Err... yeah.
Look! A tree!
*Runs*