Anyone know about this?
Anyone know anything about this? Looks interesting.
sharehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Playground_(TV_series)
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
I don't use Wikipedia for anything because it's a sad joke where accuracy is concerned, so don't know what it says.
But this is a kind of 40 years later sequel, for lack of a better term, for the original 1974 film of the same name, starring Simon Burke when he played a small lad attending a school run by Catholic brothers.
I did watch the trailers for it right before it came out and it sounds as though Simon Burke has done a good job with this story. He said in an interview he didn't want to make a hatchet job on the church (especially given the truths that have come out in public since 1974) but that it would try to be fair and thoughtful.
The original film also pointed out the difficulties of the school and young boys locked up in a religious institution run by brothers who themselves are a lot of the time troubled with the life. But it never judged them harshly.
But then all of the public revelations about sexual abuse had not hit the headlines back then and people were still in the dark about the massive abuses going on in 1974. So the film just dealt with the tensions and difficulties of the life for the kids coming of age and the brothers dealing with their own frustrations and demons.
Because quite frankly, that's all there could have been to the story in a time when the secrets were still being kept, both by the abused and the abusers.
Am looking forward to Simon's latest take on the story now that some of the hard truths have been exposed. This story takes place in a different context.
Everything written on Wikipedia has to be verified independently, so I'm not sure what you find so funny. Are you one of those FNC people who think it's a huge conspiracy?
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
No, alas.
Just a former news researcher in the days (like the days when the top 3 newspapers were filled with highly skilled professionals) when accuracy was a matter of being sued--or fired--if you got it wrong and went to print with fewer than 3 solid sources and backup original documentation in your hand, you'd be skating on thin ice. Dictionaries were vetted endlessly and in hard print. Almanacs were reliable, edited, vetted hard copies.
I came up before the internet when we had to have documentation from original sources without exception. Sometimes documents were validated by an inspector general or notarized.
The insanity of goes out these days as "accurate" is horrifying. I'm just old school who came up learning what a real document is versus slapped up info put out willy nilly is and I'm just hard wired after all of that to be suspicious of information not vetted by a source that you can judge for its reliability.
One actor told a story that's funny but it's a cautionary tale--that every time he has a film or tv series coming out a good friend of his gets into his wiki entry (knowing reporters and people will be looking it up) and changes it in various ways, and adds that he wet the bed at university.
That's wiki.
People do mess with the wiki, but it's never permanently. Moderators and editors check changes every 2-3 hours. And like I said, footnotes allow you to verify what is written. And I'm positive no facts come from biased media sources, like FNC or Daily Kos.
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
Hi parade,
The insanity of goes out these days as "accurate" is horrifying. I'm just old school who came up learning what a real document is versus slapped up info put out willy nilly is and I'm just hard wired after all of that to be suspicious of information not vetted by a source that you can judge for its reliability.
From your description, I'm assuming we're about the same age. However, I only earned my college degree recently, and I'm a Granny. My kids are in their mid-thirties. So, while your perspective is familiar to me, I've been swayed by my kids to think of Wiki as being as valid as any other source. When it's important enough, triangulating still pertains. But, here's what they said that addresses your assertions.
Encyclopedia Britannica, is rife with propaganda, sexism and other assorted filters which sully the presentation of information. The deliberate exclusion of the experiences of minorities and women makes the historical records kept by old white men, suspect. There is also the issue of profit motives which can affect what is focused on and what is ignored.
Wiki on the other hand, has the Old Boy Network propaganda, but it also has current information. Anyone can edit Wiki, but there is a record of each previous page, so you can see what the page said before the edit, who did the editing, and the timing of both (or many previous edits.) As another poster said, this information is linked to verifiable sources.
My kids judge that to be more credible because if you make a mistake or deliberately vandalize the information, someone else will correct it very quickly. The information is updated and challenged, constantly. To them, that insures that the facts get out. They contrast this with the aforementioned socially imbalanced body of information which used to be considered factual.
Politically, this is amazing because if a government is suppressing information, someone from another country can post the information they are privy to. And, there's no eraser, so even if a writing battle ensued, it's there for anyone to see.
I'm in America and the journalists and editors I grew up with were a totally different breed from what is around today. Today, the media allows government to intimidate them and they become talking heads for political agendas. The closest we have to the standards of the old days are people like Julian Assange, of Wiki Leaks and hackers, in general. That's where the independent voices can be found.
So, I guess I'm saying the good old days weren't as good as the propaganda suggests they were. Read, Napoleon Hill's work in which he tells the tale of how the President got captains of industry and various media moguls (radio, newspapers) to create a plan to elevate the spirits of Americans. A deliberate manipulation of the public through journalistic means. That was just after the Great Depression.
Watergate, The Pentagon Papers, Hoover's CIA, Kent State... the information always was conflicting and tainted. That it was on pulp paper and not in digital form, meant it was easier to manipulate. Some things have not changed. Multiple sources is still considered to be more credible than information based on one source. If you really want to find facts these days, check the only place left on the planet that isn't censored - the deep Web.
You know, or not. :)
The EYES see only what the HEART can comprehend. [cooldance] share
I'd rather have Wikipedia than do without it. References are everything,
and if there is doubt, then check the references. It's not that difficult.
I've been watching the series and have read the wikipedia page and would say it is accurate.