Hi DtP
Every interview you have ever seen is heavily edited.
Incorrect. Think about live interviews for example. I work in the broadcast industry (BSkyB) and have seen plenty of fair, balanced edits take place - one aim of quality journalism is presenting the facts thereby allowing the viewer to decide. It is always difficult to decide what to leave in and what ends up on the floor. The only way we could truly know in this case is to see a full transcript.
Clearly GBJ's opinion is 'somewhat' relevant and is more valuable as evidential input than our/your opinion as to her and WTS motives.
Again, I disagree that the interview was to gain "advantage" to the WTS.
GBJ's opinion. See above. It is her statement. In the wider context of the WTS's long and indistuinguished record of misquoting secular authors, changing doctrine, rewriting their own history, having different versions of publications on WT CD compared to original print and blaming the followers for misplaced expectations it is reasonable in my opinion to conclude their use of a heavily edited piece which has an external subject matter expert seeming to imply that child abuse is a recent phenomenon is typical of their modus operandi.
It seems like an honest attempt at educating.
Allow me to avoid that school. Education has a root meaning of 'leading'. Where is the viewer being lead? To conclude that child abuse is recent, that experts didn't know about it 18-20 years ago and that the WTS is in the forefront of 'progressive understanding'. The viewer - probably a JW - can then be satisfied that the WTS is at least no worse than 'society in general' and most likely taking a leading position in the field.
How so? Gail's "out of context" claim is bogus to begin with, as the Media site did not give context.
The point is that 1 minute of non-concurrent clips compiled from 60 minutes of original interview is out of context by any reasonable definition of context. If you like I can respond with numerous reputable media websites showing full transcripts of interviews they have partially used in reporting stories. The fact that the WTS 'did not give context' is grounds for concern surely?
Add to that, I suspect her memory is not good here
Sounds like she is weasling under harrassment from Ex-Jws.
I suspect it is a lot of "context" given to her by your friends
Can you see how subjective your statement are? You are giving an opinion on behalf of how someone else may feel - not valid argumentation.
Just for the record please see below an email I sent on the 29th November 2007 to the point of contact given on a website GBJ is listed with:
Hi Ellen
I note Gail is listed on your website http://mscsw.org/ - I'm interested in contacting her for more details about her views on paedophilia, which are being used by Jehovahs Witnesses in some sort of official apologetic manner to excuse their current troubles in this regard. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21917798/ dated 21st November 2007
http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/2122827332/717263.htm
For your convenience I have pasted a transcript as captured from the same website
Dr. Bethea-Jackson:
I don't think, 18 or 20 years ago, we knew much of anything about pedophiles. It wasn't really looked at as a criminal matter. We didn't publicize it as being an act that needed some criminal intervention, so to speak. We didn't look at it … or it wasn't … people didn't have the body of knowledge 18 or 20 years ago to say that this is something that will harm your child emotionally, if you don't address it. Parents didn't know the seriousness, 18 or 20 years ago, and the long-term effects. And as people document the work that they've done, some successes and their failures, that some of that early work did not get to the public. I mean, it was in some New England journal somewhere. But certainly it was in the process of being looked at and studied. That information was not released. We weren't taught that in school. I went to one of the most prestigious social-work schools, at that time, in the country and in all of my studying, we didn't have a course in child abuse .
Evidently this interview was created some time back and I'd like her current opinion on this matter. She is on the record here as saying that 20 years ago the sexual victimisation of children was unknown, not viewed as criminal, information wasn't widely available, and she hadn't come across it as a subject during her 'prestigious' education.
I find all that hard to believe to be honest and would welcome your help in contacting Gail to ascertain her current professional opinion.
--
Best Regards
Paul Morrison
(a concerned parent and former Jehovahs Witness)
I resent your implication that Ex-JW's are harassing her and giving her a piece of their mind. Not so. We are concerned that a well meaning child care professional is being used ina way she did not intend. She agrees it would appear and is taking steps to rremedy the situation.
I suggest you write to the WTS cc your local Body of Elders and ask for their side of the story now that you have seen GBJ's, and let them know how you have defended their position to date on this website.
