Whats the real problem with Media? they say no documenatation supplied

[berniew1]

There is the claim by the media people that they are being inundated with emails, faxes, etc. that allege problems but supply no documentation. I suspect there is some truth to that claim. When people contact the media are they provided some documentation of the thing they are suggesting or alleging? If not, the contact will likely be detrimental rather than helpful.

This election clearly had huge problems, perhaps more than any in history, but because of 2000 it was the most scutinized election ever, with huge amounts of information regarding what occurred. When you contact the media or Congressmen, it is my opinion that you should provide some URLs of documentation of the problems you are alleging. There is a huge supply of such.

For example:
There was widespread systematic vote machine rigging in touchscreen areas of most swing states that has been fully documented down to the precinct and machine level in many cases.
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://northnet.org/youngstown.htm

There was massive levels of systematic voter suppression of minorities
http://northnet.org/minstrel/columbus.htm
http://northnet.org/minstrel/cleveland.htm
http://www.votersunite.org/
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/930
There is also a huge amount of other detailed documenation.
But when you contact someone, referencing some documentation might be useful.

[Liberty Belle]

1. I've attached tons of documentation

and used the media blaster to email all the major media.
They are lying through their teeth.

[berniew1]

4. If this is the case, the public needs to develop new information systems

Such as internet based
Alternative newspapers and Radio and TV, etc.
But how do you reach the non activist public?????

[Pacifist Patriot]

8. One ear at a time.

[Liberty Belle]

10. Direct mail to every house in America should do it.

More ideas: Billboards along busy freeways, newspaper inserts, leafletting cars in mall parking lots during the last minute holiday shopping season, and paid ads on TV shows with high ratings. Long term, Air America in every town and a new magazine targeting Red state voters, packaged to appeal to moderates and conservatives on issues like erosion of civil liberties, jobs, healthcare, etc.

[mod mom]

2. They are Corporately owned and bow to the almighty $

Profit margin and protecting their own self interest. Shame on them.

[rkc3]

3. Here's a hint to the media:

If you are receiving thousands of notices of alleged problems, there might be fire associated with that smoke.

I used to believe that if a media outlet got wind of something like this, they might actually send a reporter out to investigate these allegations. Apparently, they are becoming more like Condi Rice (who I'm happy to say hasn't been in the spotlight recently), who needs to know the flight and seat numbers before she could act.

[Patsy Stone]

5. Investigative Journalism

has gone the way of the dinosaur. These people do not get up off their butts for anything. They don't even make phone calls.

Why should we have to provide documentation? We're sitting here in our pajamas! We don't get paid for that!

Journalism these days seems to consist of running AP stories word for word or taking Press Releases at face value. Come to think of it, Press Releases usually don't come with back-up documentation.

I don't get it, except to say that if it's good video they go with that. I can't tell you how many local stories have gone unreported here in favor of a factory fire in the middle of nowhere, where no one was injured, because of the spectacular footage.

It's a really good thing that Watergate didn't happen during the Scott Peterson trial...

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. I agree and have wondered alot lately if

Watergate would have been enough to bring down Nixon in 2004. I don't know why I suspect there would have been a collective yawn. Investigative journalism is dead because it is too expensive. It cuts into profit margins.

[Patsy Stone]

9. Well

It was all a matter of timing. Nixon/Watergate was unique because at that time there was still respect for the office of POTUS, if not the man, too. Nothing like that had ever been exposed, and no one would have believed the POTUS would have ever been involved. The office has been so tarnished by the Right, with their impeachment over infidelity, that I can't believe that now we're supposed to respect *, the war criminal, just because he didn't shtup an intern.

It's all a matter of who knows who -- and then over here you've got favoritism. -- Raising Arizona

[Beth in VT]

6. Aren't they supposed to be informing us

of what's going on rather than the other way around? This is crazy.