I think I need to write an article about the NYT's complicity

[EFerrari]

in the more or less easy stealing of our federal elections.

From the (then) Public Editor's response to all our email asking them to cover the Conyers' hearings:

"And more, I expect, will be explored and explained in future articles if meaningful allegations can indeed be established as facts. Both Matthew Purdy, the head of The Times’s investigative unit, and Rick Berke, the paper’s Washington editor, assure me that reporters will continue to look into the issue. I’m confident that if they find something, they’ll publish it."

-- Former Public Editor Okrent, Liar.


(Okay, I added the "Liar" part.)

I'm thinking that it could be useful in getting the word out to write a sort of citizen's reaction to the spying story in the light of the Times' dismissing our concerns about the election. I've enough material -- their letter, mine, that kind of thing -- to give it point. And it might be that OpEd News or even the Nation would be interested. (The Nation, another publication that has a lot to answer for in their silence and or dismissal of this entire issue early on.)

For some reason, I remember in minute detail just about every minute of the trauma, from watching Smirk on television without a care in the world when he was behind to all the names they called those of us who questioned the outcome from a few minutes after 11p.m.


And the ironies. The CEO of the AP was in Hollywood, keynoting for a graduating journalism class, and his topic was how the press needed to be more like the internet WHILE we were being called "internet conspriacy theorists" in the AP, at the Times.

And, this may be pie making avoidance tonight (:) ) but, it should get done before the spying story stales.

Is there a downside that I'm not seeing?

[Einsteinia]

1. I've been against the NYT ever since

I saw the video (not the voluminous tome of a book) called "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky. It really explains how it isn't a conspiracy that makes the NYT and others do what they do, BUT the nonetheless they are NOT working for us.

In a nutshell, once corporations are in the hands of just a handful of entities, media outlets simply cannot afford to alienate them. In newspapers, for example, the subscriptions are actually a lost leader. The cost of running their enterprise comes from advertising.

Before I joined the election integrity cause, I was working in the "media reform" cause because of Noam Chomsky. When Michael Powell tried to further consolidate the media from a 75% cabal to a 90% cabal of just 5 mega-corporations--it became clear that the "free press" was D.O.A. It's a sad fact that now that most families take two incomes to keep their heads above water that they are inclined to get their news from infotainment sources from the t.v. while they nosh on their fast food, which is often cheaper than wholesome food. We've got major disequilibrium in our society's balance due to the globalization and consolidation of the corporation in too few hands.

So, it's nothing personal, it's just good business--business that keeps them in business.

I highly recommend the video.

In the meantime, less people understand the complexities of election reform and so that's where I'll continue to put my calories, because while media reform is important, election reform is THE mother of all issues. Without it, nothing else is possible.

[EFerrari]

4. That video is a must see.

And I agree about election reform. And I suppose I'm thinking about this article as a sort of Trojan horse for election reform. Because "dead on" sometimes doesn't communicate. Sometimes, quietly sideways is an effective strategy. Still mulling.

[Einsteinia]

18. Sounds great!

Now, if we can get it distributed without the mainstream media.

Though finally I'm seeing some fissures. One thesis is that corporations that run the media are now suffering from the Bushit.

Things are getting quite interesting. . . .

[PATRICK]

10. advertising and readership equation

IF the readership downsizes the advertisers lose the benefit of their dollar and the support cycles down unless they are more concerned about having a mere propaganda outlet and a defanged watchdog than selling products. There are some wretched benefits to getting deregulation and political blind spots to their doings but advertising itself becomes an empty jacket and is merely another payoff-by-other-means that could be investigated and punished as such.

The equations need to work with consumer reaction but where will they get their info if not cutting loose from trust in the NYT to begin with?

It all seems like chicken and eggs circular conundrums but the answer is to cancel one's subscription with copies of one's letter judging why slanted news/propaganda will hurt the advertiser in the long and short run and utterly defeat the large appeal of the product as a public service. Controversy will lose the nuts and they bow down to them because the outlets that solicit their ad money make RW hate work. Even though such stuff damages the purposes of ads and business. The mindset of business is blinder to this perspective of reality than the Dems are to modern politics. The ones who need alternate media that currently are the haven of anti-corporate truthsayers are the corporate leaders themselves and especially their stockholders. Refusing to allow accountability to grasping renegades in their midst running DC like Las Vegas is unfortunately natural for members of the same class/group and they still believe that the GOP strangled government is out to get them. Indeed it is, but not in the way the stranglers tell them posing as their freebie buddies.

[Tuesday_Morning]

2. Buy the pie at the grocery store

Cause it sounds to me like you have a story to write.

[EFerrari]

3. Thank you! Off the hook!

:rofl:

[snot]

5. Much needed. I hope you will mention

that, deliberately or inadvertently, Judy Miller's silence re- Plamegate and the NYT's agreement to suppress the story about spying on domestic citizens until AFTER the election were both probably also critical in Bush's re-election.

Also, the following is from an e-mail exchange between me and a friend beginning the day after the 2004 election. Basically, I sent her an excerpt from a NYT article on the 'net; by the time she visited the link to read it, a critical sentence had been expunged. Here's the exchange, including the original excerpt from the article, BEFORE expurgation (read this string in reverse chronological order):

ABSOLUTELY. I CUT AND PASTED THE TEXT DIRECTLY FROM THE ARTICLE ON THE NYT WEBSITE AT THAT ADDRESS THE SAME DAY MY MESSAGE WAS SENT. THE ELIDED PORTION WAS NOT SUCH AS TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF WHAT I INCLUDED. --C.

On 11/5/04 4:06 AM, <(e-mail address deleted)> wrote:

(my name)-

The NYTimes must have deleted the line referred to in the text below that you sent yesterday. You can still access the article, but the line is gone. Did you actually go to the story and see the line?

The rug is being vacuumed at the Times I’m afraid.

(my friend's name)


-----Original Message-----
From: (my address)
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:22 PM
To: (her address)
Subject: Re: (names deleted) birdfest

So glad to get your message. As always, so sensible. I can’t blame the Dems for conceding, but I can’t help wanting to know more about the mechanics of the election.

Per the New York Times, “surveys of voters leaving the polls .. . . showed Mr. Kerry leading Mr. Bush by as much as 3 percentage points nationally.” Nonetheless, “ith 98 percent of the national vote reported as of 8 a.m. Eastern time , Mr. Bush was leading Mr. Kerry by a margin of 51 percent to 48 percent . . .”(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/politics/campaign/04electcnd.html?hp&ex=1099544400&en=ba992171a995deaf&ei=5094&partner=homepage) <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/politics/campaign/04electcnd.html?hp&ex=1099544400&en=ba992171a995deaf&ei=5094&partner=homepage)> <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/politics/campaign/04electcnd.html?hp&ex=1099544400&en=ba992171a995deaf&ei=5094&partner=homepage)> ).

--so those exit polls were off by as much as 6 percent. Is that an unusually large discrepancy?

Meanwhile, in this same election, the VNS Exit Poll System broke down—the main system that could have provided data to either discount or point toward any tampering. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/05/politics/main528252.shtml) The system that was extensively overhauled after the 2000 election in order to make it more accurate.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/generaltech/article/0,20967,714491,00.html :
"Adding to the chaos, one network news reporter has received a tip that mercenary hackers were hired to alter the code of a particular brand of machine so that every 10th vote for Candidate A was recorded as a vote for Candidate B. Meanwhile, in Colorado, another group of hackers is boasting that they stole a box of electronic smartcards used to activate e-voting machines and reprogrammed them to allow multiple votes .. . . ..
"On Election Day, a group called TechWatch, made up of computer scientists and other volunteers, will monitor e-voting machines across the country. When trouble strikes-machines crash or suspiciously large numbers of votes for one candidate show up in a low-traffic polling place-the problem will be posted to the group's Web site, and a TechWatcher will be dispatched to document the problem and attempt to fix it. After the polls close, the group will have a detailed picture of which machines failed and where security may have been breached. If there's a recount, TechWatch can use this evidence to determine whether concerns about voting machine accuracy in particular areas are well founded."

So, what did TechWatch find?

Does anyone know what proportion of the voting machines in the swing states, especially Ohio, were electronic machines without any paper trail? Will there be any comparisons of results as between those with and those without paper trail?

[robbedvoter]

6. I know NYT shilled for W in the past 2 elections - including editorials

As for what happened when the numbers flipped, I kept coverage from a more reliable source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3987237.stm

Early exit polls quoted by media seemed to give Mr Kerry the edge, but colleagues said Mr Rove indicated right away that they did not tally with his information.

He used his own data to put Ohio and Florida in the Bush column - bringing cheers from the president and his family when he went into the Roosevelt Room and told them

[nicknameless]

7. And:

And when the TV networks gave either Ohio or Nevada to Mr Bush but not both - which would have led him to be declared as the winner - Mr Rove was one of the president's aides who got on the phone to news chiefs to try to pressure them to change their minds.

How many Kerry aides were arm twisting news chiefs to change their election results?

[EFerrari]

14. Yes! And Bush's cousin called the election at Faux news. n/t

[acmejack]

8. Can't wait to read the finished product.

Hope you'll share it.

[enough]

9. Good idea, and I recommend this thread from a couple of days ago

on the subject:

Posted by autorank:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2328298

[EFerrari]

15. Thank you. There's so much data, your rec is really helpful. n/t

[autorank]

11. Please do! I'd buy any magazine, etc. that ran it.

What a disgrace the NYT is. I must confess as a former New Yorker for a good time, I was quietly disdainful of the NYT obsession. I thought, we're an international city and there are better papers (this was years ago) so why not read them? Well, I did from time to time, although the Times won my enduring admin ration during the Pentagon Papers. Then my excuse for not being a devote was simply sloth. It was a real commitment to do a thorough read. But there was always the Pentagon Papers.

I've quipped, would they publish something like that today?

My answer was provided by Mr. Keller and company. They are not journalists, they are mice.

Please write your response. It's time to pile on.

[liam_laddie]

12. Sunday 12/25 NYT - LTTE's!

There are FIVE LTTE's discussing election systems' fatal flaws.
Maybe the "get rid of electronic voting" movement is getting traction.
DU and all the activist groups across the entire nation can claim
credit for keeping this crucial issue alive. Will the public-at-large
finally "get it" and demand honest, auditable voting?
That'd be the greatest gift for 2006 that I can imagine!
Sorry if this dupes another thread I may have overlooked...

[EFerrari]

16. Not a dupe for me! Thank you. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

13. Good project, sfexpat2000! Go for it! The harm they've done to this..

...nation, on the war, on the election, the exit polls and the blackholing of the election fraud story, and now on withholding this pervasive, unchecked, illegal Bush spying since before the election, is almost incalculable--in human terms including massive loss of life, in financial terms with Bush having pushed the nation into bankruptcy, on harsh impacts on the poor, on trashing of the Constitution, and on the destruction of American journalism, given the Times prior rep as the reliable paper of record, especially as to their promotion of a Bush regime lapdog propagandist (and probably treasonous felon herself) Judith Miller. Their journalistic and other crimes are perhaps no worse than other war profiteering corporate news monopolies, except that they used their status and past excellence as the foundation on which to sell lies, of an extremely damaging kind. They are much like the Bush regime itself, which has used the ingenuity, creativity, loyalty and hard work of the American people--in building a decent country, good communities and good government--and the patriotism and professionalism of our military, intelligence community and other government personnel, as the platform on which to construct their filthy pile of blood, chaos, looting and thievery. They have exploited, plundered, corrupted and destroyed everything they've touched in their ugly climb to dictatorial power. And the NYT has climbed right up there with them.

[EFerrari]

17. The NYTs has snuggled up to their facism.

Thank you, Peace Patriot.