I have read many posts where people are sending emails to national media contacts, demanding that they cover voting irregularities adequately - and that they do it fairly (no more conspiracy and "tin foil hat" angles please!).
To be effective, we need to present both the most convincing AND credible arguments. And we must do it in a concise manner. Reporters and editors receive hundreds of emails everyday, and (initially) they won't read through (or check) a large quantity of info to determine if a potential story deserves more attention.
So I'm asking Duers to list what they think are our most convincing and credible links here; and how they should be presented (i.e. what "attitude" we should take in approaching the MSM).
I'll start with a few I believe would fit this criteria:
1) The University of Pennsylvania study that concluded that there is a 250 million to one chance for the exit polls and the election results to have turned out as they did.
"250 million to one! That's the odds against Bush having actually garnered as many votes as he is credited with in OH, FL and PA. The exit polls are accurate, the vote count isn't, according to this analysis. (actual link) <Right-click and save target as>"
<From my web site - under 11-10-04 section>
http://www.independentmediasource.com/evotingfraud_statistical_analysis.htm2) 11-12 "Washington Post's Sloppy Analysis" "...signaled their determination to put questions about Bush’s victory outside the bounds of responsible debate. Yet, if they hadn’t been so set in this agenda, they might have avoided sloppy mistakes and untrue assertions.
In an example of their slipshod reporting, Roig-Franzia and Keating state that we focused our data analysis on rural counties in Florida. They suggest that Bush’s gains in these rural counties might be explained by the greater appeal of son-of-the-South Al Gore in 2000 than Bostonian John Kerry in 2004.
But we didn’t focus on rural counties in Florida. Rather we looked at the vote tallies statewide and zeroed in on Bush’s performance in the larger, more metropolitan counties of southern and central Florida, where Bush got the vast majority of his new votes over his state totals in 2000.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/111204.html<A good example of analytical journalism, done by Robert Parry, a former "insider". It is also valuable since it debunks the "debunkers".>
3)The Keith Olbermann shows from last week. I particularly liked where he compared the Caltech/MIT study to the one from U of Penn. The former found no significant statistical aberration on a state-by-state basis. However, Olbermann pointed out that they included ALL states; as where the U of Penn study only included the swing states, and it showed a significant statistical aberration (250 million to one odds!). Keith concluded that this study is more relevant in determining whether potential voting fraud occurred, since it wouldn't be necessary to "jack up" the vote totals in non-swing states. <Plus MSNBC adds mainstream credibility.>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/4) "FBI denies warning officials of any special threat" Warren County officials, facing scrutiny of their decision to lock down the administration building on election night, say they were responding to a terrorist threat that ranked a "10" on a scale of 1 to 10.
The information, which Commissioner Pat South said was previously deemed confidential, is coming out a week after the public was barred from viewing the Warren County vote count. The Ohio Secretary of State's office doesn't know of any other county in the state to impose such a restriction.
County officials initially said they feared that having reporters and photographers present could interfere with the ballot counting. They subsequently cited homeland security concerns.
Now, they say an FBI agent told them that Warren County ranked a "10" on a terrorism scale. However, state and federal homeland security officials said Tuesday they were unaware of any specific threat against the county.
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/11/10/loc_warrenvote10.html <This story should have made national headlines and became a HUGE scandal. This story, above all else, has convinced me that there is a news "lockdown" on presidential election voting fraud.>
5) "UC Berkeley Research Team Sounds 'Smoke Alarm' for Florida E-Vote Count" Statistical Analysis - the Sole Method for Tracking E-Voting - Shows Irregularities May Have Awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or More Excess Votes to Bush in Florida.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/11-18-2004/0002464301&EDATE=<This story has the credibility of a top-notch university behind it. This should be becoming a MAJOR EMBARRASSMENT for MSM - considering their lack of coverage!>
-------------------------------------------------------
This brings me to my last point. What attitude we should take when contacting the MSM? I think that we should unequivocally DEMAND that they "do their job"! They are expected to be the "guardians of truth" in our republic - our founding fathers expected it! After all, it is the only private Enterprise group that is mentioned - and protected - in the constitution ("freedom of the press").
So I suggest that we present an angry, even threatening tone, in our contacts with the MSM. We should make it clear that we will not tolerate this negligence on their part, and they do it at their "risk and peril"! If this continues, they will totally lose their credibility (and public following) as the general public becomes more aware of the truth in spite of their inaction! It is becoming increasingly clear that, one way or another, "truth will prevail" since "we" the Internet community will never let go of this until the truth is revealed!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
