After that show aired, I was so angry, I canceled my subscription to Ladies' Home Journal -- and the reason why: merely because they put Dr. Phil on the cover of a recent issue. Hated to see that man's face in my home. Grrr.

Now we know how to handle you if you start to get out of control.


We'll just slip photos of Dr. Phil under your doors.  heh heh   

This has been posted before.

Former News Radio Staffer Spills the Beans on How Shock Jocks Inspire Hatred and Anger

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/107326/

The fact that people are upset is what they aim for. It will only insure much of the same.

Quote from: lisagurl on November 28, 2008, 02:04:53 PMThe fact that people are upset is what they aim for. It will only insure much of the same.

And therein may lie a strategy.  What if a group of well-prepared, well-rehearsed trans-people were to get on the show, and then challenge the fundamentalist viewpoint and their lies on the LGBT community, and present the current science fact on transsexualism AND the violence that has been waged for years on the LGBT (and specifically the trans) community.

The idea is to produce a memorable show for them while getting our story out there.  If the show gets good ratings, producers may even try returning to that well again.

The trick is to be just edgy enough to stick up for 'our side' and be interesting without being so belligerent as to drive away that part of the audience who could be persuaded to take our side.  A third of the population will never be persuaded that trans is anything but 'unnatural' etc..., and a third are already on our side.  But there's that third that can be persuaded.

I'll stop here, before this post takes up the rest of the day...

=K

Quote from: Karen on November 28, 2008, 06:01:25 PM
...  A third of the population will never be persuaded that trans is anything but 'unnatural' etc..., and a third are already on our side.  But there's that third that can be persuaded.

The only difficulty I see, Karen, with your very good idea and well-formed plan is that initial one-third you mention comprises about 80% of Mr. Phil's audience.

I imagine the third you're aiming for doesn't watch late afternoon tv like Mr. Phill and Oprah. And if his show airs in the morning my guess would be that prolly 90% of his audience would be in that initial one-third.

You'd prolly have to work it so Mr. Phil gets a prime-time special on TS/TG to reach much of that final one-third you're aiming to catch.

Nichole

don't forget that phil's folks can edit the show to appear any way they want it to.

Personally I have a problem with the whole idea of Dr. Phil creating a version of reality by which people are judging their lives.    How many complexes is he creating in young people and children because their parents are not raising them the way Dr. Phil thinks they should.   Yes we should try and find  ways to interrelate with each other that are not violent and manipulative.   We should seek out help when problems overwhelm us.  But our answers depend upon who are and who we seek out for help.   But Dr. Phil's shows are scripted and censored by lawyers, and hand picked psychologists who just happen to write books.    How many of our lives have these resources?  Do we really want people who sell their ideas and have to defend them to tell us how to live?   Is their a Dr. Phil answer for every problem in life?  Should all of our lives be guided by the wisdom of Dr.  Phil?  Does he rate up there with Plato and Socrates?

I think we know that answers to all these questions.    I don't think Dr. Phil is the alpha and the omega of all wisdom?   Do you?   

NOPE!

I think hes a moron.

Quote from: Nichole on November 28, 2008, 07:59:43 PM
The only difficulty I see, Karen, with your very good idea and well-formed plan is that initial one-third you mention comprises about 80% of Mr. Phil's audience.

With good theater and YouTube, it may be possible to get something out.  Just look how that bit with the FotF 'researcher' made it out.  And that generates interest. in the parts that aren't Dr. Phil's core demographic.

Here is an EXTREME example of guerrilla messaging in a hostile environment.  I'm not saying Dr Phil would be anything like this, but in a mildly hostile environment and against editing you can get one or two messages out, if you provide the producers the coin of the TV realm, ENTERTAINMENT:


=K

I remember that interview. It made me angry. I stopped watching talk shows indiscriminately after seeing that.

I heard Murdoch is actually embarrassed by his own network.  I don't know if that's true, but I can understand why.

Wow, I never knew that how bad Dr. Phil really was. When I first saw him on TV I felt an immediate dislike for him for some reason. I knew I didn't like him at all so I just ignored everything Dr. Phil related. Just wow...

I found the whole show on YouTube.  Here's the link to the topic I posted:

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,50388.msg311193.html#msg311193

It's good to see the whole thing in context.

=K

Quote from: Karen on November 29, 2008, 02:05:00 AM

Quote from: Nichole on November 28, 2008, 07:59:43 PM
The only difficulty I see, Karen, with your very good idea and well-formed plan is that initial one-third you mention comprises about 80% of Mr. Phil's audience.

With good theater and YouTube, it may be possible to get something out.  Just look how that bit with the FotF 'researcher' made it out.  And that generates interest. in the parts that aren't Dr. Phil's core demographic.

Here is an EXTREME example of guerrilla messaging in a hostile environment.  I'm not saying Dr Phil would be anything like this, but in a mildly hostile environment and against editing you can get one or two messages out, if you provide the producers the coin of the TV realm, ENTERTAINMENT:


=K

Wait... Why are susans.org people watching Fox again? Remind me.

I mean. Thats like sticking your head in the toilet. Its the same result everytime, so why analyze the contents when they never fail the negative?

Quote from: Lisbeth on November 28, 2008, 11:41:32 AM
They figure teaching kids about gender is indoctrinating them with things like, "Wives, submit to your husband as unto the Lord."

Thanks to Natasha for pointing this one out:
http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2008/11/29/gender-roles-in-the-church/

"...48% of Californians recently voting against Proposition 8 which upholds a biblical view of marriage. The reason for this confusion, in part, is because churches have caved in on teaching the distinctive roles for men and women, boys and girls. Which has, in principle, left them weak on the biblical prohibition against homosexuality...

Women learning in quietness and submissiveness means at least that Paul thinks it is good for women to learn. But the main point for Paul is the submissive attitude women must model. Verse 12 teaches the same quietness of verse 11. There is a quietness God requires and provides in women that quells any impulse to usurp spiritual authority from a man. Women can teach women and children."

--Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood