Thursday, October 23, 2008
Open Letter to the Media from the Media
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AND DISTRIBUTION TO ALL MEDIA
Current Signatories 2 November 11pm (PT): Dave Berman - Mark Crispin Miller - Alastair Thompson - Peter B. Collins - Michael Collins - Ernest Partridge - Bernard Weiner - Rob Kall - David Swanson - Rady Ananda - Lynn Landes - Dan Ashby - Linda Milazzo - Jan Baumgartner - Cheryl Biren-Wright - Amanda Lang - Joanne Lukacher - Andi Novick - Paul Lehto - Mark A. Adams - Catherine Austin Fitts - John Gideon - Ellen Theisen - Bev Harris - John Chuckman - Bernie Ellis - Steve Freeman - John Russell - Jason Leopold - David L. Griscom, PhD - David Earnhardt - Carolyn Zaremba - Ron Baiman, PhD - Donna Norton - Josh Mitteldorf, PhD - Kathy Dopp - Allene E. Swienckowski - Lisa Finerty - Dave Stancliff - Sam Smith - Danny Schechter - Eric Holland
Dear Media Colleagues,
You are receiving this message because you are known to American progressives as a truth-teller. In this presidential campaign, despite the typical horse-race coverage, we also see the overall corporate media narrative influenced by daily debunking efforts from candidates' rapid response teams, the blogosphere, and the reality-based coverage and reporting that you provide.
We need to take this to the next level.
There are three very simple basic facts about the way US federal elections are conducted now, and we think they lead to an inescapable conclusion that must be addressed.
See if you agree:
1. We have secret corporate vote counting computers counting more than 95% of the votes cast in the United States;
2. The absence of paper ballots, and in some cases state's law, prevents meaningful re-counts throughout much of the country;
3. These electronic voting machines frequently produce results impossible in a legitimate election, such as John Kerry's negative 25 million votes in Youngstown, OH (Nov. 2004), or Palm Beach County's 12,000 votes in excess of the number of voters (Aug. 2008).
To us this suggests the conclusion that federal election results are unprovable, even though the media reports them as fact.
Can you draw any other conclusion?
It will surprise nobody this November when the outcome is a spoiled mess, riddled with controversy. In fact, we can already say the results--based on the conditions--are guaranteed to be inconclusive, unknowable and unprovable.
We must challenge our industry to refuse to report as fact what can't be proven and hasn't been independently verified, particularly when the only source of the information is the government itself.
The reality is that the media should be the greatest advocates of hand counting paper ballots because this method of counting allows media greatest access to observing and documenting the process, affording the reported results the greatest credibility.
Transparent coverage of a transparent counting process would create a basis for confidence in the reported results where none currently exists.
As we all know, there is a vibrant community of engaged citizens across the US who collectively self-identify as the "election integrity community." They are asking us truth-tellers to challenge our industry, essentially reframing the debate.
Many of them have appeared on our shows and in our columns over the past few years, and they are eager to be sources for us now. But they are also counting on us to take this message forward and we don't see how we can be truth-tellers without doing that.
Please join us in this concerted effort to use truth-telling yet again to change the corporate media narrative of this presidential campaign.
Respectfully yours,
Dave Berman, WeDoNotConsent.blogspot.com; Voter Confidence Committee of Humboldt, CA
Mark Crispin Miller, Author, www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com
Alastair Thompson, Co-Editor/General Manager, www.Scoop.co.nz
Michael Collins, "The Money Party," usacoupscoop.co.nz/?tag=michael-collins;electionfraudnews.com/MichaelCollins.htm
Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers www.crisispapers.org/
Bernard Weiner, Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers www.crisispapers.org/
Rob Kall, Executive Editor & Publisher, www.OpEdNews.com
David Swanson, Co-Founder, www.AfterDowningStreet.org
Joan Brunwasser, Election Integrity Editor, www.OpEdNews.com
Rady Ananda, Senior Editor, www.OpEdNews.com
Lynn Landes, freelance journalist, www.thelandesreport.com
Tom Courbat, Founder, SAVE R VOTE, www.savervote.com
Dan Ashby, Co-Founder and Director, www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org
Linda Milazzo, OpedNews Senior Editor; HuffingtonPost blogger, www.OpEdNews.com
Jan Baumgartner, Managing Editor, www.OpEdNews.com
Cheryl Biren-Wright, Managing Editor, www.OpEdNews.com
Amanda Lang, OEN Managing Editor, www.opednews.com
Joanne Lukacher, Communications Director, Election Transparency Coalition, www.re-mediaetc.org
Andi Novick, Legal Counsel, Election Transparency Coalition, www.re-mediaetc.org
Valerie Lane, Chair, SAVElections Monterey County
Paul R Lehto, Juris Doctor, Author of Election Law Encyclopedia articles
Mark A. Adams JD/MBA founder of http://www.ProjectVoteCount.com
Catherine Austin Fitts, Scoop “Mapping The Real Deal” Columnist, solari.com
John Gideon, Co-Executive Director, VotersUnite.Org
Ellen Theisen, Co-Executive Director, VotersUnite.Org
Bev Harris, founder and director,Black Box Voting (Web site http://www.blackboxvoting.org)
John Chuckman, Columnist & Cartoonist More Websites: Postcards, Trading Cards, Places
Bernie Ellis Organizer, Gathering To Save Our Democracy (Tennessee) and Convener, National Election Reform Conference Nashville, TN April, 2005 - http://www.votesafetn.org
Steve Freeman, author, academic and founder of ElectionIntegrity
John Russell (FL-5) D - www.johnrussellforcongress.com
Jason Leopold, investigative journalist, author - TPR: The Public Record
David L. Griscom, Ph.D., impactglassman.blogspot.com; Co-Founder, AUDITAZ; Member Coordinating Committee, Election Defense Alliance.
David Earnhardt, filmmaker, "UNCOUNTED: The New Math of American Elections"
Carolyn Zaremba, Socialist Equality Party
Ron Baiman, PhD, Economist/Statistician, Vice President National Election Data Archive/U.S. Count Votes
Donna Norton, Member Elect, Sonoma County Democratic Central Committee; Member, Progressive Democrats of America, Sonoma County
Josh Mitteldorf, PhD, statistician for Election Integrity and Election Defense Alliance
Kathy Dopp, MS Mathematics, Executive Director, US Count Votes
Allene E. Swienckowski, author http://www.whenmeangirlsgrowup.com
Lisa Finerty, Chair, Democrats Abroad - Rome Chapter
Dave Stancliff, freelance journalist
Sam Smith, The Progressive Review
Danny Schechter, http://www.mediachannel.org
Eric Holland, MA Media Arts, Emerson 2002; Editor 1938music.com
SEND THIS EMAIL TO THE MEDIA
LAST WDNC UPDATE: 11/2/08 11pm PT
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/10/open-letter-to-media-from-media.html
Labels: election integrity movement, hand-counting paper ballots, open letter, Scoop, truth-tellers, unprovable
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Peter B. Collins, Dave Berman to Discuss Unprovable Federal Election Results - 10/23 5pm PT
Listen live through PeterBCollins.com Thursday at 5pm PT as I'll be on this great talk radio show to discuss whether the accuracy of federal election results can be proven.
For a long time I have argued federal election results are inherently inconclusive, unknowable and unprovable - based entirely on the conditions under which "elections" are conducted. There is simply no basis for confidence in the reported results, that is, no reason to believe them.
As I hinted last Friday, when I wrote about the Nation's John Nichols coming around to describing the 2000 and 2004 elections as "inconclusive," during tomorrow's interview we will begin to hear a louder chorus taking up this message and calling out the media.
Why should we be expected to believe reported election results that media have not and can not independently verify, which can't even be proven, and which come from only one source - the very government whose grip on power is at stake?
In fact, for as long as I've written the We Do Not Consent blog there have been others making this point. In the back of my book, We Do Not Consent, (free .pdf), there are testimonials that have permanently appeared in the sidebar of the blog as follows:"This is an important collection of essays with a strong unitary theme: if you can't prove that you were elected, we can't take you seriously as elected officials. Simple, logical, comprehensive. 'Management' (aka, the 'powers that be') needs to get the message. 'The machines' are not legitimizers, they're an artful dodge and a path to deception. We've had enough...and we most certainly DO NOT consent."
Over the years, these points have been made in countless ways. Tomorrow we will unveil perhaps the most impactful expression yet. In the meantime, here's another that I submitted last week as a letter to the editor of the North Coast Journal. I'm posting it now because their new issue came out today without it.
— Michael Collins covers the election fraud beat for "Scoop" Independent Media
and...
"If in the future we have vital elections, the "no basis for confidence" formulation that GuvWurld is popularizing will have been a historically important development. This is true because by implicitly insisting on verification and checks and balances instead of faith or trust in elections officials or machines as a basis for legitimacy, it encourages healthy transparent elections. It's also rare that a political formulation approaches scientific certainty, but this formulation is backed up by scientific principles that teach that if you can't repeat something (such as an election) and verify it by independent means, it doesn't exist within the realm of what science will accept as established or proven truth."
— Paul Lehto, Juris DoctorDear Editor:
Thank you for the even-handed run down of state and local ballot issues (Oct. 9). Perhaps you could also devote a little space to both sides of a national question: are federal election results provable?
One side says: we have secret corporate vote counting computers in more than 95% of the country; about 30% of the country doesn't even use paper ballots to allow a serious re-count; and these electronic voting machines frequently produce results impossible in a legitimate election, such as John Kerry's negative 25 million votes in Youngstown, OH (Nov. 2004), or Palm Beach County's 12,000 votes in excess of the number of voters (Aug. 2008).
These self-described "election integrity advocates" say there is no way to prove federal election results. They further allege that media is abandoning its most basic principles by publishing election results as fact, when the information has not and can not be independently verified. Worse still, they say, is that media reports of election results rely on only one source--the government--even though the government can not prove the reported results.
Opponents argue federal election results are provable because. Just because.
While this is fairly convincing, the Journal could do a genuine public service in affording more space for elaboration of this point of view. The Journal could also encourage the media industry at large to advocate for hand counting paper ballots, reasoning that this method of counting allows media greatest access to observing and documenting the process, affording the reported results the greatest credibility, and demonstrating that the reported results have been proven to the satisfaction of the thousands of ordinary Americans who would be involved in counting ballots.
Dave Berman
Eureka, CA
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/10/peter-b-collins-dave-berman-to-discuss.html
Labels: hand-counting paper ballots, inconclusive, John Nichols, Michael Collins, North Coast Journal, Paul Lehto, Peter B. Collins, Scoop, The Nation, unprovable
