acptulsa
07-27-2010, 08:49 AM
Dear Mr. Harig:
When I was young, my father and I went 'round and 'round in the evenings. I wanted to watch Channel Six. I considered it more reliable in terms of news than the other stations. My father wanted to watch Don Woods. You see, he considered Mr. Woods more reliable. When Don forecast rain for the weekend, we were off to the lake. When Don forecast fair weather, we canceled the picnic and kept the galoshes close to the front door.
It was an odd sort of "reliability", but it worked for Dad. Now, I see from last night's broadcast, you are playing for the same sort of "reliability". You seem to believe that we will tune in, secure in the knowledge that when you say it's day it will assuredly be night, and when you say it's night it will unquestionably be day.
You said that Nathan Dahm's website was "misleading". Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't say that; you said it was "MISLEADING". Well, I still don't have it right; I seem not to have huge red letters at my disposal. I guess I have a long way to go to become a proper propagandist.
So what was it that was "MISLEADING"? It seems he mentioned that John Sullivan voted for the TARP bailout, and provided one link that proved the assertion (and proved the same about Mary Fallin) and one that showed he voted for something else. So, you pronounced that one link of two "MISLEADING". You didn't, I see, even mention that a link which proved his claim and was in no way "MISLEADING" was right below it.
So this raises the question--is it more "MISLEADING" for a candidate to provide a link which is what he says it is, and another link just as a bonus, or is it more "MISLEADING" to jump on this one link in the finest "gotcha journalism" style in an effort to make people believe that no such bailout vote occured?
For, you see, there is no question that Sullivan (and Fallin) voted to rob from the poor and give to Goldman Sachs (and others). The only questions that remain are, who do you think you're fooling, and is it really a good idea to sacrifice your reputation as a news organization for a piece of Good Advertiser Sullivan's "War Chest"?
Our founding fathers believed that a vigorous and free press was necessary for the maintenance of a democracy. I sincerely hope they were wrong. For if they were right, then there is no hope for democracy in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
And I don't know what else to say, except that I hope the fine reputations of Doug Dodd and Clayton Vaughn are in no way tarnished by the fact that the news organization they once worked for has degenerated into a "news organization" and an outlet for pure propaganda.
As sincerely as a heart attack,
Anthony Platt of Tulsa.
cc: KTUL
KJRH
FOX23
OETA
UTW
The Nathan Dahm campaign
The Randy Brogdon campaign
libertyforest.com
Anyone to whom any of the above care to forward this.
When I was young, my father and I went 'round and 'round in the evenings. I wanted to watch Channel Six. I considered it more reliable in terms of news than the other stations. My father wanted to watch Don Woods. You see, he considered Mr. Woods more reliable. When Don forecast rain for the weekend, we were off to the lake. When Don forecast fair weather, we canceled the picnic and kept the galoshes close to the front door.
It was an odd sort of "reliability", but it worked for Dad. Now, I see from last night's broadcast, you are playing for the same sort of "reliability". You seem to believe that we will tune in, secure in the knowledge that when you say it's day it will assuredly be night, and when you say it's night it will unquestionably be day.
You said that Nathan Dahm's website was "misleading". Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't say that; you said it was "MISLEADING". Well, I still don't have it right; I seem not to have huge red letters at my disposal. I guess I have a long way to go to become a proper propagandist.
So what was it that was "MISLEADING"? It seems he mentioned that John Sullivan voted for the TARP bailout, and provided one link that proved the assertion (and proved the same about Mary Fallin) and one that showed he voted for something else. So, you pronounced that one link of two "MISLEADING". You didn't, I see, even mention that a link which proved his claim and was in no way "MISLEADING" was right below it.
So this raises the question--is it more "MISLEADING" for a candidate to provide a link which is what he says it is, and another link just as a bonus, or is it more "MISLEADING" to jump on this one link in the finest "gotcha journalism" style in an effort to make people believe that no such bailout vote occured?
For, you see, there is no question that Sullivan (and Fallin) voted to rob from the poor and give to Goldman Sachs (and others). The only questions that remain are, who do you think you're fooling, and is it really a good idea to sacrifice your reputation as a news organization for a piece of Good Advertiser Sullivan's "War Chest"?
Our founding fathers believed that a vigorous and free press was necessary for the maintenance of a democracy. I sincerely hope they were wrong. For if they were right, then there is no hope for democracy in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
And I don't know what else to say, except that I hope the fine reputations of Doug Dodd and Clayton Vaughn are in no way tarnished by the fact that the news organization they once worked for has degenerated into a "news organization" and an outlet for pure propaganda.
As sincerely as a heart attack,
Anthony Platt of Tulsa.
cc: KTUL
KJRH
FOX23
OETA
UTW
The Nathan Dahm campaign
The Randy Brogdon campaign
libertyforest.com
Anyone to whom any of the above care to forward this.