I guess my curiosity was piqued when I read the article.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/ne ... launch.htm
Does anyone know anything about RADAR?
Does anyone know anything about RADAR?
Always with an even keel.
-- Allen
-- Allen
I thought you were going to ask about RADAR systems... like Phased Array, or Traditional, or Doppler... 
Anyway, anytime an organization is formed to watch against media bias, it will get opposition from the media in general. Media bias is a natural occurance simply because of the nature of the beast and because each reporter/producer/team bring their own personal beliefs on the various issues to the table. This forum is a nice sub-culture example. We have lots of varied opinions, positions and BIAS here. That's fine as long as you're open about it and civil about it. (Thus the rules...) The news media makes it a point to claim neutrality, but no matter which position you take on an issue, it is clear to see that some media outlets are more even-handed than others. On this forum, I (obviously) bring my own opinions and bias along, however I actually have had opinions changed and modified by some people and I try to allow everyone to put their own opinions out here as long as they remain civil about it and can back up their positions with sources/cites/stats that don't come from known "agenda" organizations. (IE: we don't want to use either Handgun Control Inc. OR the NRA as the source for stats about guns without full verification of accuracy... better to just use the original source for the stats & cites such as the FBI uniform crime reports...) IMNSHO, We've been pretty good about that here.
RADAR sounds like a balanced organization, but they came out of one perspective, one side. What they say seems fairly accurate as far as I can tell on a NATIONWIDE basis. However, from personal observation, it doesn't hold true in all areas. In Massachusetts, for example, if you're a couple getting a divorce in one county and the woman says "domestic violence", then the man is treated like dirt. BUT, in the next county over's court system, even if the woman has medical evidence and the testimony of a doctor, the judges ignore that evidence and will find for the man every time. Two counties, with the pendulum all the way to the woman's side in one and all the way to the man's side in the other. (barring the occasional alternate judgement to make things "look good"...) The point is that if the organization works to make the media and the system more accurate, that's great. If they go into it with a preconceived agenda, then we'll have to see if that causes them to be biased and defeats the purpose.
Anyway, anytime an organization is formed to watch against media bias, it will get opposition from the media in general. Media bias is a natural occurance simply because of the nature of the beast and because each reporter/producer/team bring their own personal beliefs on the various issues to the table. This forum is a nice sub-culture example. We have lots of varied opinions, positions and BIAS here. That's fine as long as you're open about it and civil about it. (Thus the rules...) The news media makes it a point to claim neutrality, but no matter which position you take on an issue, it is clear to see that some media outlets are more even-handed than others. On this forum, I (obviously) bring my own opinions and bias along, however I actually have had opinions changed and modified by some people and I try to allow everyone to put their own opinions out here as long as they remain civil about it and can back up their positions with sources/cites/stats that don't come from known "agenda" organizations. (IE: we don't want to use either Handgun Control Inc. OR the NRA as the source for stats about guns without full verification of accuracy... better to just use the original source for the stats & cites such as the FBI uniform crime reports...) IMNSHO, We've been pretty good about that here.
RADAR sounds like a balanced organization, but they came out of one perspective, one side. What they say seems fairly accurate as far as I can tell on a NATIONWIDE basis. However, from personal observation, it doesn't hold true in all areas. In Massachusetts, for example, if you're a couple getting a divorce in one county and the woman says "domestic violence", then the man is treated like dirt. BUT, in the next county over's court system, even if the woman has medical evidence and the testimony of a doctor, the judges ignore that evidence and will find for the man every time. Two counties, with the pendulum all the way to the woman's side in one and all the way to the man's side in the other. (barring the occasional alternate judgement to make things "look good"...) The point is that if the organization works to make the media and the system more accurate, that's great. If they go into it with a preconceived agenda, then we'll have to see if that causes them to be biased and defeats the purpose.
Another post feeds my brain to print out a sign and hang it over my desk to test the responses. "Radar Granmaster" I'll create graphics , holding Skolnck's under the arm, taking out a pair of outmoded and obsolete radar sites with a flying-spinning split-side kick.I thought you were going to ask about RADAR systems... like Phased Array, or Traditional, or Doppler...
While the term may be appropriate for their activities, it sounds like The Radar Men are intent on going after the injustices performed against men . It may be mild backlash or they may may gain momentum, and numbers. It'll be interesting to see what they accomplish.
Always with an even keel.
-- Allen
-- Allen
