In late 2004 and early 2005, this blog devoted nearly every post to vote (not voteR) fraud and the dangers of electronic voting. At the time, the mainstream media dismissed all such concerns as paranoia. Now, the New York Times Magazine has devoted a massive cover story to the topic.
I've skimmed the piece. It's good, but doesn't hit hard enough. Brad Friedman notes that his organization did not get due credit for providing a Princeton University professor with a "liberated" Diebold machine for study.
My question: Why didn't anyone in the mainstream media attempt this kind of investigation years ago? Why didn't more news organizations report on these events as they took place?
Journalism delayed is journalism denied.
2 comments:
Well, from this tinhat's perspective, the reason is the powers that control the media felt comfortable with the outcomes likely with "vote fraud" controlled by political cliques they supported.
Now that their little experiment has blown up in their face, they've decided they might need "our" (you know, the commoners, riff-raff, people who work for a living) help to make sure we avoid another Presidential term filled by some useless GWB clone and his Fascist sycophants. More importantly, they think it might be important to their own bottom line to avoid the final, fatal blow such a Presidency would likely deliver.
Just a suggestion, please use the term 'election' fraud so that the Thor Hearns of this world cannot conflate the two terms 'vote' and 'voter' together...please por favor ?
Flo
Post a Comment