News Reports, Studies, Research and Cop-Outs
by Peter W. Johnson
I recently wrote a letter of complaint to the Editor of a newspaper who insisted I give proof of my claim that early voting, and absentee voting, largely consists of demographic groups who would normally tend to vote for Democrats (especially in critical swing states). This, even though this Editor had already received a comment from a former journalist in Wisconsin (Matt Pommer) whose article was included in this paper’s opinion page, and, discussed the fact that a Federal Judge (Judge Richard Posner) had publicly changed his opinion about voter suppression attempts by Republicans in the case of, “Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board”–even though he formerly wrote the majority opinion in the Indiana court ruling against restricting such voter ID and voter suppression techniques in that State.
Even though I provided plenty of news sources confirming such turnout by early voters (especially in such critical swing States) along with links to various studies and research that was affirmed by reputable news outlets, my efforts to convince this editor of the truth behind my statement required many additional letters to be written in order to convince this editor that I had done genuine research about the topic–letters which also cited sources like the NAACP, the ACLU, the WISCONSIN LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, and ATTORNEY GENERAL ERICK HOLDER–among others.
The following is my last response to this editor who refused to publish my opinion letter until just recently, and, only after what seemed to be much blood sweat and tears on my part. I have omitted references to some personal names and specific news outlets so as not to offend those at the news outlet I contacted, and who normally provide fine coverage of most news events:
Written on December 8th, 2013
NEWS REPORTS, STUDIES, RESEARCH AND COP-OUTS
In Mr. Pommer’s article he made continued references to Judge Richard Posner’s contrition and his regret that he had written the majority opinion in the case of “Crawford Vs. Marion County Election Board.” Pommer even quotes the judge as saying in his new book, “I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion,”–directly referring to an error in judgment made by him in the Crawford Vs. Marion case. The judge is also quoted as now believing that this particular case represents, “a type of law now regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than fraud prevention.”
I ask you (Editor), don’t these statements from the judge represent an effort to apologize for his decisions in the case? In my haste I may have referred to the article as a letter of apology from the judge, but the information Pommer reveals about the judges statements, definitely indicates guilt and contrition on Posner’s part. It is also quite puzzling that you chose to make me jump through hoops in order to advance the same idea in my letter–especially when a Federal judge had made the same type of assertions.
What I did was give you nothing but links to “news reports, studies or research.” And when such information comes from well established outlets like the Washington Post, and even the New York Times, I feel I have done my job of presenting a credible argument about a very real problem concerning the attempts of Republicans to prevent voter fraud by using restrictions on early voting and absentee ballots–in a way that actually creates massive fraud on their part.
I don’t believe that this is an alien concept or one that hasn’t already been extensively examined by the Press. You as a journalist–and one even having direct evidence from the horses mouth of Judge Posner–should have realized that in an “Opinion page,” when a writer quotes credible sources, studies and statistics to back up a claim, that this writer doesn’t have to provide you with incredibly specific corroboration, of a type with which those who conduct polls are well familiar but which is not always completely available to the public.
It is bizarre to think that the scientists who amass statistical data about election outcomes, are basing those figures on thin air or determining them by using inaccurate judgement calls. So, when I gave you links to several websites which confirmed my statements about early voting numbers which substantially favored Democrats (especially in swing states which concern Republicans) I have no idea why you chose to cross examine me (over and over) about this claim?
Even with your editing of the letters from a local gun advocate (and those who agree with him) concerning gun regulations, the remarks he makes about the 2nd Amendment being in place to allow an armed citizenry to protect itself against the Government, is far from being an established fact. You have also published other letters by him and those who agree with him, which contain vitriolic calls to arms in defense of an immanent government confiscation of weapons. The point here is that, fine, let his opinions be published on an OPINION page, (in the pursuit of honoring the first Amendment) but don’t expect me to consult the library of Congress, just to voice a much more rational and well reported practice like voter suppression done by Republicans–do you see the double standard you are creating?
You may feel that none of my sources measured up to the required objectivity, but I don’t know where on the web to access, a written in stone–“this source is an absolutely true source,” website. To me the ones I used were just fine–even if you found them not in agreement with your knowledge of voter suppression tactics. What would you have me do, keep sending you links to articles from financial journals like Forbes or the Wall Street Journal both of which support big business interests (like Republicans do)?
Why do you insist on the correct sources being so narrowly defined–especially since once again, (your paper’s Opinion Page) contains statements of OPINION from many readers? In these cases information from established news sources, ought to be good enough–because after all, we are not all professional journalists!
I sometimes wish you would allow some of the cheekier comments of mine to make their way to the opinion page, but that is not my main complaint. What I am saying is that, with the links I provided, and the studies and polls which were at those links, it should go without saying that my opinions about voter suppression received adequate affirmation. Certainly much more adequate than the many writers who have publicly slandered and lied about the President, but are still allowed to spread such nonfactual and prejudiced mythologies in the opinion pages of major news sources around the country.
The fact is that, what the GOP is attempting to do, is to commit massive voter fraud in an attempt to control the outcomes of close elections, and then claim that this is merely a common sense method to prevent fraud itself–the kind of which does not really exist in any significant numbers.
This devious behavior is reprehensible, and should be exposed in any way it can. I would expect the same outrage from Republicans, if the roles were reversed, and, I think such dishonest and unethical behavior should not be encouraged in a Democratic society–or at least should be exposed as quickly and accurately as possible by those of us who know it as the “not too thinly veiled attempt to discourage election day turnout by certain folks believed to skew democratic.”–as the judge who wrote the dissent in the Indiana case (judge Evans) puts it, and, which Pommer’s article makes very clear is also the opinion held now by judge Posner.
Did you ask any Republicans to cite specific affirmation of these so-called attempts to manipulate elections by focusing on virtually non-existent voter impersonation types of fraud?
Do you accept the likelihood that a federal judge would not publicly change his opinion without good proof of the falseness of these supposed manipulations?
And, although I won’t dispute the fact that the words of a judge and a former professional journalist carry much more weight than mine, couldn’t you have allowed my letter, and the facts in it to be accepted, especially since you had already received a letter from this prominent former journalist (that included a Federal Judge’s statements concerning his change of heart)?
You may know a lot about the publishing and journalistic fields, but apparently you are not sufficiently informed about the massive evidence which exposes the crookedness of Republican legislators in almost exclusively Republican controlled states. I am offended that you seemed to do everything possible to deny such a well known argument, by refusing to acknowledge the validity of all my sources and the many links to them which I provided–and then state that I complain more about the way my letters are published than other writers.
Freedom of expression is one thing, but I believe the press should also play a significant role in confirming the use of unsubstantiated propaganda–a category that does not include any of the information I provided to affirm cases of Republican voter suppression tactics. Similarly, because the press has not had the guts to publish factual affirmations of man-made global warming and the danger it posses to all mankind, our children and grandchildren may not have access to a safe future environment needed to support them. should the press have published the beliefs of climate change deniers–of course.
But (on the other hand) it did a pathetically inadequate job of affirming actual scientific truth for countless members of the public–choosing instead to focus far too much on those attempting to negate the evidence of solid science. I personally do not want to see the same thing happen when the press apparently fails to expose the attempts of Republicans to cement their power by attempting to completely control the political and economic environment. This is just one more case in which the press should recognize it powerful role in shaping public opinion. If you feel this doesn’t apply to the allegations that actual voter fraud is really being committed by Republicans then, I respectfully suggest that you do further research on the subject.
Peter Johnson is a senior citizen who has become much more interested in what is happening in America and the world, than he was as a young man. He’s interested in poetry and expository writing, and has had letters to the editor published in Time magazine, Newsweek and Playboy magazine. He is concerned about ignorance and indifference that has been circulated concerning the significance of man made global warming and is dismayed dismayed by the way political lies and corruption are being used to influence the public (apparently free from any penalties or adequate culpability). He frequently writes letters of opinion to the editors of his local newspapers.