Clark Supporters Please flood Paula Zahn with emails she is

[xultar]

Biased against Clark. If she is going to do a show on the candidates military records she should include Clark.

Call her on her bias.

Lite HER UP! Include Anderson 360 and Newsnight

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

GO GET EM!!!

[MAlibdem]

1. Though Edwards fans should thank her, I guess

He needs a 2 man race

[spooky3]

14. I'm an Edwards supporter, but I refuse to thank

Paula Zahn for bad behavior.

[teevee99]

2. e-mails sent. thanks for posting:)

[xultar]

3. Thanks, more the bettter! n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

4. Sent

i also brought up Julie Woodrifts obvious bias.

[jmaier]

5. Please folks

Do be calm and reasonable in any emails that you send to the media. I've already heard from a Clark campaign person that irate, angry tin foil type slams against media personalities are going to HURT and not help Clark with the media.

Face it -- no one likes to be the recipient of ad hominem attacks (even if they are deserved!) It's not going to win sympathy for our cause. Praise mildly, where possible, and calmly recite the facts.

[Joe the Revelator]

6. Mine was very respectful

Hi my name is Joey WXXX and I'm a public relations student at Old Dominion
University in Norfolk Virginia. I was distressed to here that Paula Zahan
was planning on NOT including GENERAL Wes Clark in her coverage of the
military backgrounds of presidential candidates.

While I (hopefully) have you ear i would also like to lodge a complaint
with your coverage of the primaries last night. It was all i could do to
keep from changing the channel after having to listen to Julie Woodrift
(sp?) do everything in her power to belittle the gains that Clark made last
night by winning Oklahoma. Woodrift's bias against Clark is obvious and has
not gone unnoticed by those who follow the news. This morning in my " Media
in National Elections Class" we spent the better part of the period
discussing CNN's apparent bias/blackout of Wesley Clark and its effect on
the race.( In fact inside politics just started, and Julie mentioned
Edwards and Kerry's gains but failed to make any mention of Clark's
showing.)

I hope that you're station continues to be the actual true beacon of news
and does not drift off into the realms of Fox News.

Sincerely,
Joseph WXXX

[KC21304]

7. Bingo, and that goes for every candidate.

These people are only human, (most anyway ) and we can only lose by being nasty. Many in the media are also married to people in the media so you are asking for twice the trouble, in some cases.

I'm thinking of Judy Woodruff and Al Hunt, for example. Al is usually quite sympathetic to our cause and I don't think we will win any points with him by calling his wife a whore.

[Julien Sorel]

11. What about a cadaverous whore?

Sounds more inmpressive.

[xultar]

8. OK, I'm done with the whole email thing. Any Clark supporter here

who wants to write emails. Please PM me and I'll send you the list of email addys I have.

If the news media expect us to not be angry and show it when they obviously have a bias they can expect me and many others to tune them out.

How can someone in a position of power hold our feelings over our head. If they were fair we wouldn't be angry.

I'm furious that I have to bow and beg them to be fair in their coverage when they should be doing that in the first place.

So since I am angry and my tone isn't acceptable to the media.

Some one else can do it. I'm tired of this bullshit.

So, if you want the addys just let me know. I'll forward them to you and you can write the kind sweet begging letters that will win them over and get them to be fair.

[KC21304]

10. Maybe there is a middle ground ?

Something between a fan letter and calling into question the persons occupation ? :shrug:

If the purpose is just to insult someone, than let er rip. If the purpose is to let them know you don't think they are being fair and to try to point out the reason you think so, than you may accomplish something.

I am not commenting on anyone's emails because I have not seen them. I am just agreeing that more harm than good can be done sometimes.

[xultar]

15. Nope, I'm angry and tired. No middle. Some one will pick it up or

it won't get done. Either way I'm out.

I don't rip them. I do make it very clear they have a bias, because they do.

If I have to beg and be all nicey nice to some jerk who is supposed to be objective in the first place I'm gonna puke.

Then for them to get angry because we call them on it. Puhleez.

They are the media, that is where we get our information. If they allow their personal bias to colour what they report SHAME ON THEM. They serve a critical function for society and that function isn't to select our elected officials. Ther job is to tell us objectively what is happening and allow us to make the decisions.

Think how pissed we are when FAUX says they are fair and balanced and they report we decide yet we know they contribute to the RW candidates? CAn we expect them to tell us the truth. NO!

CNN was the last one. The bowed to the GWB administration and booted Clark off the air. Then they call his campaign DEAD and a DISASTER when he won a state and got 2 2nds yet Edwards is the new Democratic Star. Kerry can't be stopped. Dean can't be stopped. That is editorializing. Not telling us simply that Kerry is in the lead or Edwards had a good eveining.

When is it that a Major Newspaper can request that candidates not be allowed to a debate? They did it to Nader, now they are trying to dictate who should be @ the debate by telling us they shouldn't. That is overstepping the bounds and they are telling us who is worthy and who isn't.

That shouldn't make me ANGRY. If it doesn't make you angry enough to SHOUT then we've already lost. They won. So why vote.

PM me for email Addys Clark Supporters puhleezzzzz

[kerry-is-my-prez]

9. THAT felt good. We need to do more of this. It works for the freepers so

why not for us....

[jean]

12. feedback - does this sound too nasty?

We will be watching Paula Zahn tonight expecting to see responsible, informative coverage of General Clark's service record.

CNN is showing blatant bias by anointing the front-runner as winner and showcasing ONLY Sen. Kerry's military record as it stacks up against the incumbent.

CNN has a responsibility to inform the public but appears to be trying to mold public opinion with biased coverage.

[jmaier]

16. I'd consider changing the 2nd sentence to be

less directly accusatory since they haven't done so yet:

"Currently, two strong democratic candidates have enviable military records that deserve to be contrasted with the President's. While Sen. Kerry is undeniably the current front-runner, things can change and it could be perceived as biased if his record was highlighted without mentioning the record of another Democratic challenger: Wesley Clark."

[jean]

17. thanks, j

[democracy eh]

13. Done

in a polite way drew their attention to the number of 1-2 finishes for the two decorated veterans in the race, that those cumulative numbers were even more impressive than just Kerry alone. 74% in ND for example. so everytime they go to say Kerry, they should say Kerry and Clark!

a fella can dream