BBV: NPR reporting on Deibold/MD right now.

[AP]

Ran Diebold's claims that problems are fixed. Now playing Avi Rubin's criticisms. Quoting MD officials who say voting is safe. But, Rubin's concerns are making some jurisdictions think twice. Playing Rubin saying the only thing that will make people happy is paper ballot. But, elections boards says this is too expensive. MD says they're confident they made the right choice.

11 million people will hear that story by the end of the day.

Write a "what the fuck was that story?" letter to NPR. Tell them you need to know more about whether this is totally fucked up.

[sendero]

1. The report...

....was simply inaccurate, claiming that Diebold had already fixed the critical problems. NPR must be doing their reporting by simply reading the Diebold press releases.

I oscillate between anger and sadness at what this once-great news organization has become.

[creativelcro]

2. NPR

"....was simply inaccurate, claiming that Diebold had already fixed the critical problems. NPR must be doing their reporting by simply reading the Diebold press releases.

I oscillate between anger and sadness at what this once-great news organization has become."

I agree... I don't think that more money would fix it though... -CV

[AP]

3. Yes, the reporting on this story was 'he said, she said" -- there was no

attempt at investigation and reporting.

Although NPR is the source of 40% of the information I get daily (20% other radio, like BBC and KPFA, 35% internet, and 5% TV), I don't think I ever thought it was great. E.g., Cokie Roberts has been infuriating me for years on NPR.

[Junkdrawer]

4. The offhand dismissal of the voter-verified paper trail pisses me off...

they said (after Rubin's quote that the only thing that would restore voter confidence is a voter-verified paper trail) was:

"but experts say that a paper ballot would not be any more secure and would add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of the machines"

They didn't say what 'experts' said that and, more importantly, they didn't give the reasons these 'experts' gave as to why a paper trail wouldn't make the counting of votes more secure.

[AP]

5. Like I said, this story was basically, "Diebold says./ctitics say"

One problem with this is that the critics are so diffuse, and Diebold is a large, publicly traded company with lots of government officials hoping it succeeds. NPR has an obligation to go to greater lengths to get the arguments and questions out that the diffuse, disorganized public needs to hear. Avi Rubin can't be expected to carry the full load for the non-Diebold half of the debate.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Here my email:

[e-mail]

Dear NPR:

Your 9/24/03 Morning Edition report on the Maryland SAIC Report in regards to the Rubin’s report was woefully inadequate in several areas. Specifically:

1.) The issue of a voter-verified paper trail is at the center of touch screen voting debate. Without a paper trail, horror stories such as the negative 16,0222 votes given to Al Gore in Volusia County Florida would never have been resolved. Your offhand dismissal of this absolutely needed reform by citing unnamed experts giving unspecified reasons why this method would not add to voter confidence is most troubling.
2.) The SAIC report was over 200 pages long and yet only 40 pages were released to the public. Your report made no mention of this fact. The public needs to know why the software, hardware and procedures used in the non-proprietary process of counting our votes are held in such secrecy.

Sincerely,

[Junkdrawer]

7. Kick (More emails needed!)

:kick:

[althecat]

8. Worth a kick....