Skip to comments.VANITY: Help! LJS Editor Needs Some Schooling
Posted on 03/08/2011 10:07:47 AM PST by butterdezillion
The Lincoln Journal-Star printed a totally inaccurate, ad hominem editorial regarding the eligibility issue at http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_896f2493-dd7d-5ed6-9261-8e36ef8e6fa5.html . But they refuse to print a factually-accurate, 200-word letter to the editor that I submitted because "The first couple of graphs are fairly confusing to us, so we'd take those out ..."
I encourage you to contact Victoria Ayotte at VAyotte@journalstar.com and let her know that you don't appreciate their censorship of facts on critical issues. You can mention the e-mail exchange wherein she refused to print critical facts from a letter to the editor by Nellie.
We have got to call out the media lies.
Details of the communications in the first comment. They are wilfully pretending not to comprehend basic facts.
Hawaii is actually supposed to provide letters of verification to media entities also, but (as always) they’re not following their laws and rules in Hawaii. (sigh)
For some reason I just feel really sad for the people at the LJS. Here I had thought they were so deliberately lying and it’s more likely that they either don’t have or haven’t cared to take the time to really know the subject they write about. I feel sort of like I would feel after finding out that the person making fun of my son all the time is doing it to cover up that he doesn’t know how to read.
I thought you had said at one point that you have experience with journalism. Do you have any insight as to how best to try to break through the crud so some of these people will be real with me?
Why not ask one of the reporters to lunch, where you can school them one on one.
lol. Have them for lunch, eh?
I think my family is mortified at the thought of me being within spitting distance of Hawaii, Washington DC, or anybody in the media. lol. They need not worry because I don’t know how to spit and besides I wouldn’t spit on anybody.
I’d probably talk their ear off instead. lol. My most effective weapon. Puts them to sleep better than a veterinarian could do.
I think it would be good for me to interact with some of the media people, though, if only because it would give me better perspective. It never even occurred to me that somebody would just look at the SCOTUS ruling and think that was the whole story of the case in question and they would then be confused by a statement that the plaintiff had been denied standing because SCOTUS didn’t deny standing in the cases.
And I realize now that I should make sure it’s clear that when a judge denies standing he/she is NOT making any ruling on the actual claim of the suit - but is just saying, “It’s none of your business whether Obama (or McCain or whoever) is eligible.” I’ve been dealing with this for so long now, that I don’t remember what kinds of things people might not know.
I ran my letter to the editor past my sisters. One said it took her a bit to realize that SOS is Secretary of State, and the other said most Nebraskans would think of SCOTUS as one of the high schools here. lol. So I need feedback; I don’t intend to speak in code but it creeps up on me.
These are people who have just NO idea of how ‘the other side’ thinks....or researches...or makes proofs...
They go just far enough to get a pat on the head and then they all sit around and make fun of the birthers, like NPR does.
Just sent something off....
I'm writing in response to the 3/7 editorial, "'Birther' bill is fringe of the fringe." Contrary to what the editorial claims, several valid questions remain about Obama's alleged birth documents and Constitutional eligibility. Under Nebraska law, the media has a statutory right to obtain certified copies of any state birth certificate, but such is not the case in Hawaii, meaning there's no way to fully corroborate the digital image Obama presented on his campaign website. A recent attempt by the current governor of Hawaii has failed to produce any corroborating documents.
Under the current system, no government body officially verifies the Constitutional eligibility of a presidential candidate. There is no clear definition of the natural born citizen requirement. Voters, along with the press, are left on their own to check candidates' backgrounds with no means to make a legal challenge. If there are questions, we have learned courts will not grant voters access to the most basic records necessary for determining citizenship. Even with compelling evidence a candidate is ineligible, Judges say voters do not have legal standing to sue an elected official in a civil lawsuit, thereby preventing these cases from going to trial in front of a jury.
The best option is a state law such as LB 654, which requires proof of eligibility and allows Nebraska voters the right to challenge any candidate. This bill presents no unreasonable burden basically the same as a child who wants to play Little League baseball: present a legal birth certificate. As a senator, Obama voted for a federal law requiring states to verify the validity of birth certificates with the issuing agency when you apply for a drivers license. LB 654 does no more than follow this same standard that Obama voted for.
A hearing is scheduled March 10th. Please ask Senators Avery, Price, Brasch, Janssen, Karpisek, Pahls, Schumacher, and Sullivan to support LB 654. Voters need a definition for natural born citizen, access to critical records and legal standing to hold politicians accountable. We need the ability to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and for our rights as voters.
THAT was good.
BZ: I recommend the term “security clearance”, rather than “security checks”. Most people understand what a clearance is.
That’s a good letter that I think would be convincing. The trouble is the time (since the hearing is tomorrow afternoon) and the space. With their intended edit to my previous letter, they would have given me 88 words to try to correct all their errors and make my case. Without the names of the senators or my name, address, and phone number, they would give me 71 words. Five lines of print in a standard Word document with 11-point font.
That’s 10 words less than the above paragraph. That’s the “free speech” they want to allow me. IF they say that THEY can understand what I say in those words.
There is no way, with the lies they have all the space in the world to print, and with the restrictions and censoring they do, that this can even vaguely be called a discussion. They don’t allow the space or the permission to correct their errors, much less say something of my own.
Supposedly because of space considerations, this gal wanted to change my word “critical records” (16 letters)to “birth certificate” (17 letters). With the space allowances they give, I literally had to count every letter and switch words around for the sake of saving one letter wherever I could.
I jumped through their hoops, tested that normal people could understand it, and the LJS STILL wanted to undo what I said.
It’s an illustration of what I’ve been dealing with this whole time - what anybody deals with when they have to correct inaccurate reporting in an understandable way using only the number of words that the paper will allow them.
It’s like a judge allowing the prosecution to take days, and allowing the defendant 5 words to defend himself. Stacked deck. People need to realize how this works.
I'm writing in regard to LB 654, which requires proof of eligibility for presidential candidates. Presenting a legal birth certificate is not an unreasonable burden. Under the current judicial system, voters have been denied the right to challenge or verify a candidates legal credentials. Judges will not grant legal standing to average citizens. This new state law would restore that right and provide a simple, accountable process. Please support this bill.
That’s a good, concise way to say it. If (hopefully when) LB 654 gets passed and referred to the full legislature I might steal that (with your permission, of course. lol) to put in the paper. Anybody should be able to understand that one.
I write for other people all the time, so I have no problem with you using any of that. Feel free to modify it or enhance it as you wish too. Nebraska is a pretty conservative state, so I’m hoping there are enough people with common sense there to understand how this type of bill will actually benefit them.
Nebraska is conservative but we’ve got Sodom and Gomorrah to deal with too. And the press in those places is as liberal/inaccurate as anywhere, which is a big problem.
I had also wondered what the Lincoln and Omaha talk radio stations would do with this issue. They’re Fox, but I didn’t know if Fox had passed on the “no serious eligibility discussion” all the way down to local affiliates. What I do know is that the hosts on the Omaha station, who are normally pretty decent, act as if they’ve not gotten either of my communications. Total silence, on air and the e-mail inbox. Maybe that’s just the way they do things; I don’t know. But we’re not going to get any help from them. At best they might not spread falsehood, leaving them at neutral.
It is a shame that body/image language people do not understand . . . . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.