Cornered on Credibility, Eureka Times-Standard Lashes Out Again

http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2006/06/cornered-on-credibility-eureka-times.html

Cornered on Credibility, Eureka Times-Standard Lashes Out Again

On Saturday, the Eureka Times-Standard ran an editorial archive) which I commented on here because it took a shot at citizen efforts to safeguard elections. Today's Times-Standard sinks even lower. This is an excerpt from James Faulk's column, followed by an e-mail response I submitted. Please submit your own to jfaulk@times-standard.com and/or editor Charles Winkler at cwinkler@times-standard.com.



Here is my response:

James,

In your column today you ask about the lack of lawsuits over election conditions. Please visit VoterAction.org to learn about proceedings that are moving forward in several states. In particular, here is a link to the suit filed in CA:

http://tinyurl.com/klulo

While I am familiar with those pursuing this action, I am not a party to it. Part of the reason is that they have chosen to limit the scope of their suit to DREs only, excluding the optical scanners used in Humboldt. Read the case, however, and you'll see the evidence cited supports the arguments I've presented too.

I have tried for many months to find a lawyer willing to work pro bono to bring this or any of an array of other election related complaints to a Humboldt judge. That I can't afford a lawyer, and that none have volunteered, is not indicative of the merits. In fact, here is a new issue for you to ponder. Below is a link to a brief written by WA attorney Paul Lehto, who also wrote the Foreword to my book. Lehto argues that election machine vendors typically force upon counties a contractual clause asserting that the company is not responsible if their machines don't work right. Yet such an implied warranty is built into the law and cannot be waived. Not only are the machines illegal, the contracts to use them could be declared null and void. And why should we outsource and privatize elections anyway?

http://tinyurl.com/rswgn

You are a good writer, James. But it does not shine the best light on your talents to say community members want you to be accountable to verifiable information, and then to flip it back around as if you don't legitimately have such a burden of responsibility. I also don't speak about conspiracies or talk in partisan terms. Introducing such language while attempting to undermine my efforts to get media accountability only conflates issues and further sullies the credibility you would have by doing the investigative work I've basically already done for you. That documentation is complicated does not excuse your obligation to simplify and report the facts you have verified.

In Respect and Peace,
Dave Berman

Great job GuvWurld........... :thumbsup:

I met with the editor of the paper today. He asked me not to write about our discussion but some of it will come out in an essay I gave him which he said he'll print, perhaps tomorrow. One hint: media accountability community forum.

Don't publish what you can't prove.

he'd be more in his element. This guy has a column?

I'll send him the WaPo link.

K&R

James covers the local political beat. The column is a new thing. He has taken on a clear style for it but it doesn't suit him. He's been much cooler to me in the past. I know a few people have written to him about this but the more the better. I suggest emphasizing the responsibility a newspaper has for accuracy and fact checking. "He said, she said" journalism does not wash when the opinion of the elections manager is directly contradicted by the verifiable references I provide to document my assertions (not opinions).

indicates more anger than thoughtfulness on a scale of 1-5. He hasn't a leg to stand on and probably wishes he hadn't taken this up so publicly. Ack, not a good move for a new column because people will most likely avoid it in droves.

either here or privately? best would be adding comments at http://WeDoNotConsent.blogspot.com as others have done