I can speculate, just like a lot of people. Kerry quit, story over, move on to the next one. I think there's a momentum with the media. The media packs up, it packs up in droves. The media itself has gone through massive consolidation; they're big business, these big corporations. You heard what Bob Koehler said in the film, there's not a lot of interest in tearing... And this, this is a big story, where you're saying that one of the cores of our democracy is maybe not working, and maybe there's some stealing going on; that's a big story. And... they don't go there.
In 2006 we saw the same pattern, but it was a little better. There were more stories, there was more interest in this issue. I remember Lou Dobbs, in particular, which was an odd thing how he ended up on it after all the anti-immigration stuff he did... But he's on it, forty-five stories, averaging three, four, five minutes a piece. He's saying, "These things can be hacked," and night after night they're doing these stories, following this just the way it should be followed. Election comes up, and again there were some questionable results in 2006. They did two or three stories afterward, and none of them had to do with following up on were things manipulated.
It's a hard story, and in part why I don't go there directly. It's hard to prove it. It's hard to prove it with electronic voting. You've gotta be in the room and hear them talking. It's kind of like some crimes ... it's about the people right there, and it's hard to get to the truth. I think it's a very uneasy story for the media to go to. And it baffles me, because it would make a big difference. There are some people out there, there are the Bob Koehlers who really are willing to go there. But it would make a big difference in the education of people in general, because people still - as much as they read your site, as much as they read the alternative sites - there's still the impact of when it hits that mainstream media, it affects people a lot.
So, I guess I didn't answer your question. It baffles me. I'm glad to see some people going there, I'm glad Lou Dobbs went there. I hope he goes there again this year.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Your interview would be a lot more interesting if you hadn't stuck to nothing but softball questions and fawning on your subject.
I'd have liked to see you ask him if he had any evidence at all that any voting machines had ever been hacked during an election (there is none) and perhaps hit him with some questions about the hundreds of thousands of bogus registrations from ACORN and other leftist groups, or perhaps the cash for votes practices of Democrats in a number of southern states.
But I guess that wouldn't suit your agenda, just as the media avoids reporting on election fraud in general because they know that any unbiased and halfway thorough investigation will reveal so much more fraud from the left than the right that it would be embarassing.
Think about it. All this furor about voting machines, yet it is the city and county and state electoral bureaucracies which are dominated by Democrats which have been the main supporters of the use of these machines.
Partisans like the people who made this film have identified a legitimate problem, but they need to come to grips at some point with the reality that if there is fraud going on, it's much more likely to be their political allies who are doing it.
Dave
2 - David R. Perry
Dave,
I'm assuming that you haven't actually watched said movie. I would recommend it (it's available via Netflix, by the way; in case anyone here subscribes), as I found it very interesting, and many of the criticisms you mention are dealt with in more detail there. I was not attempting to rehash every point or claim of the film.
Granted, the film has an admittedly obvious leftist bent to it, but I think it's ridiculous to criticize the main thrust of the film, which deals with the need for more accountability and checks and balances in the voting process. That is something that only benefits a real democracy. Your quibble seems to be with "why" they're looking into it in the first place, which is less important.
If you'd like to ask your own questions, the production company seems fairly open to media inquiries. Perhaps you can help fill in the blanks of the discussion.
By the way, your critique would be more interesting if you didn't exhibit an obviously equal, but opposite, agenda. (Agendas come from both sides, you know.)
- DRP
3 - Dave Nalle
Well, I'd normally take a middle course, but when dealing with a partisan position I'm naturally inclined to take the opposite one.
I've done a lot of reading on the voting security issue == things like actual academic studies -- but there's so much propaganda out there that I'm reluctant to watch a film. The format is much easier to use for propaganda and distortion in the grand Michael Moore tradition.
These things are getting on cable, though. So when it does I'll be all over it.
Dave
4 - John
The bias is so overwhelmingly against Republicans that the film is self- discrediting.