C-SPAN not covering the Conyers Forum at all now, Let them

[texpatriot2004]

know what you think!

C-SPAN TELEPHONE NUMBERS

Main Number: [phone]
Viewer Services: [phone] (for programming questions)

PROGRAMMING QUESTIONS & SUGGESTIONS
Viewer Services: Questions about our schedule, how to buy videotapes, and for any other general comments about C-SPAN - [e-mail]

Suggest Events: Submit a public event that you think C-SPAN should cover - [e-mail]

[Stephanie]

1. Did anyone get footage of it?

Can we ask Conyers office?

[pbartch]

10. I just called. I was told that the hearing was "too late" and they may

show it tomorrow.

I SUGGEST EVERYONE CALL C-SPAN AND COMPLAIN.

GET THIS THREAD IN THE 200'S!!!!!

This thread needs LOTS of publicity so everyone will see how important it is to call C-span and DEMAND that they cover the Conyers hearings!

[Stephanie]

15. But it's too late to cover it if they didn't get the footage

If someone has footage they could air it -

[liberalnurse]

46. Lets be fair to C-Span.....

I called and they told me they never sent a crew to Columbus. Logistically, it was not an option for them and did not announce that they were going to show it.....

The C-Span representative shared that there was confusion even as to where the Hearings were to take place. He suggested calling Conyers office and obtaining a transcript.


This is only a report....not a sentiment.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

2. WHAT?? Are you kidding?

Email time.

[noclonyofthechimp]

3. Why the f**ck did they pull it when it was supposed to be broadcast

at 4:30?!! Are they getting pressured????

[pbartch]

13. It's too late in the day. PHONE THEM AND SUGGEST/DEMAND THEY SHOW IT

TOMORROW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[noclonyofthechimp]

31. you bet I will. This WA Supreme Court hearing is very important I think

but no where as important as Conyers Hearings.

[texpatriot2004]

4. My first message to C-SPAN asking for verification of this.

Am I understanding that C-SPAN is NOT covering the Conyers Forum 12/13/04 ?

Surely, you will be broadcasting the taped forum at 4:30 Eastern time as you stated earlier today. Right?

[Helga Scow Stern]

5. I thought Lelaini just said they announced it would be on at 4:30 on CS2??

[texpatriot2004]

8. I read her post too and I am glad, I haven't yet rec'd reply to my

message to C-SPAN asking for verification of coverage. She is probably right about C-SPAN 2. Thank Goodness.

[Duer 157099]

6. I just called them

and was told that it WILL NOT be covered today, because they covered last week's session.

DAMN! I was counting on watching it, and thus didn't record all of what I heard via webcast this morning. DAMN

[LSparkle]

11. And they had a TV crew there in Columbus FOR THE E.C. VOTE!

This is B.S. about not having "resources" -- all they had to do was take their fucking crew over to the mayor's office or wherever Conyers is holding his hearing! Just because they covered this SUBJECT last week doesn't mean that some NEWS won't be made today (as Cliff Arnebeck indicated on Randi's show last Friday). Sending an outraged e-mail to C-Span now ...

[momzno1]

7. I sent a pissed off email

this is absurd!!!!!

[Leilani]

9. It will be on C-Span 2 at 4:30

Please stop slamming C-Span

They just finished showing an elections hearing from last week which was excellent.....A DUer was there.

C-Span 1 is covering the electoral college

And if ANY STATION DESERVES OUR THANKS, IT IS C_SPAN

They have covered EVERYTHING you can't see on MSM!

[LSparkle]

12. Thanks for the heads-up

I will not be sending them a nasty e-mail now!

[Hamoth]

14. Rather than burn bridges...

Perhaps we can get it on tommorow, which is a GOOD THING!

Now it won't play opposite of the peterson verdict, right!?
Maybe that's why they did this!?

[Diane L]

16. Done - I have called them with my message...n/t

[alexisfree]

17. done

[myschkin]

18. Please

send them this link: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/985

It shows which sensational new things were uncovered by the hearing...

[lizzieforkerry]

19. "Due to an emergency beyond our control, we will not be able to answer

your call." What kind of an emergency could that be? I will call back and leave a message, but I thought that was really weird (pressed #2 to speak to someone)

[texpatriot2004]

20. kick it

[Leilani]

21. I'm sorry, they changed the schedule again

& they are NOT doing the hearings

They are showing the Washington State Supreme Court

Sorry I was part of the confusion, but they keep changing the schedule.

[IAMREALITY]

35. IT WAS NEVER ON THE SCHEDULE

Not sure if you misheard or what but earlier today I called and CONFIRMED that they would not be airing this.

Me and a few others have TRIED countless times to reinforce this but people just didn't want to listen. ahhh well.

[texpatriot2004]

22. kickin mad

[texpatriot2004]

23. Rat Bastards!

[cyn2]

38. lol you made me laugh....hadn't heard that since the 60s!

Rat BAstards, that is.

[texpatriot2004]

49. Groovy!

[McCamy Taylor]

24. first number disconnected, second swamped

[texpatriot2004]

25. kick it

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. Go to C-SPAN2- What is on is actually more important

They are covering the WA State Supreme Court Recount Hearing. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT HEARING.

[ntwkgirl]

27. CSPAN just said THEY DIDN'T GET IT TAPED

I just called and they said they couldn't "get a crew out there in time"!!!!!

BULLSHIT!!

We need to find out if they were there or not.

[myschkin]

29. They have to understand

that this is a POLITICAL decision:

"According to Ray Beckman, a lawyer who is deeply involved in fighting election fraud, the Ohio recount team assigned to Greene County were in process of recording voting information from minority precincts, when they were stopped in mid-count by a surprise order from Secretary of State Blackwell’s office that made all voter records for the state of Ohio, private and no longer considered “public records.” According to Beckman, “the Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV, Elections, Sec. 3503.26, requires all election records to be made available for public inspection and copying.” Beckman said, “ORC Sec. 3599.161 makes it a crime for any employee of the Board of Elections to knowingly prevent or prohibit any person from inspecting the public records filed in the office of the Board of Elections.” Perhaps even more significantly, Beckman said, “ORC Sec. 3599.42 clearly states: ‘A violation of any provision of Title XXXV (35) of the Revised Code constitutes a prima facie case of election fraud within the purview of such Title.’”

To understand the significance of Ray Beckman’s analysis, one must understand what a “prima facie case” is. Black’s Law Dictionary says a prima facie case is one that “will suffice until contradicted and overcome by other evidence.” But that definition doesn’t quite tell us what’s involved. Black’s goes on to say: “A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it.” But consider this: “a grand jury is bound to find a true bill of indictment, if the evidence before them creates a prima facie case against the accused.” It isn’t necessary for a grand jury to hear the evidence for the defense, once a prima facie case has been established."


People have to be informed about that...

And I'm sure they get some tapes somewhere... (tell it to them!)

Maybe William Pitt knows about some tapes and can send them to them?

[NY lib NY]

30. Did anyone tape it?!?!?

I just called and they said they didn't cover it. I need to see this!

[Lil]

44. jmknapp video taped it (see DU thread link below) & will put it online

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x151175

he attended the hearing and has some notes

[bunny planet]

37. I was just told the same thing. They did not send a crew there at all to

cover it. I guess they think that covering the first hearing was enough.
What a disgrace. I guess I'll send yet another angry (but polite) email.
Sigh!

[McCamy Taylor]

28. here is what i e-mailed c-span

I understood that you were planning to cover the Conyers hearings in Ohio with a broadcast at 430 pm est. What happened? Political pressure? And you conveniently forgot to mention that you would not be covering it until after the fact? Your journalistic integrity has been flushed down the toilet. My representatives and the press will be hearing about this.

[texpatriot2004]

32. kick it for those who are outraged

[rainy]

33. I called and was told that they did not have time to get a crew to

Ohio this morning so they did not cover it. C-span said that they are in DC and couldn't get a crew there. I then asked if they would get a tape and show it. She said maybe.

[cyn2]

39. That's the excuse I got too....couldn't get a crew to OH n/t

[texpatriot2004]

40. That's what it is too...an EXCUSE, it's BS I don't buy it for a minute

[nickdw]

42. an excuse?

Or maybe, just maybe, it's the real reason. C-SPAN, unlike community media, cannot be omnipresent.

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. Sent an email.

This shit really pisses me off. :grr:

[EFerrari]

36. done n/t

[nickdw]

41. or write [e-mail]

*kick*

[texpatriot2004]

43. Thanks for the extra email address n/t

[rdmccur]

45. What is the web address

of DU's media blaster that tomcintyre did?
I know someone must have recorded the Conyers' hearings.
We need to blast the media with it!!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. Just sent this email

after I called and chewed out the person who answered the phone.:

"I am deeply disturbed by your decision to not provide
full coverage of the Conyers Hearings. Some very
serious allegations have emerged and continue to
emerge from those hearings. If but 1/10th of them
turn out to be true they have profound implications
for our Democracy. Why is it that more attention is
paid by our media to the legitimacy of the elections
in the Ukraine than to those in our own nation?

Haven't you taken into account that the National
Democratic Party is now also increasingly disturbed by
the reports coming out of Ohio? This on top of the
Green and Libertarian Parties. Do you need the
Republicans also to agree before this becomes
newsworthy enough for you? What would it take for you
to fully cover these hearings? Do you need Ohio's
Secretary of State to testify that he threw the
election to Bush before you consider it important
enough to replace televising some briefing on a
Federal Department's Budget?

Why do you exist at all if not to cover an event like
this where a number of sitting members of Congress are
collecting disturbing information regarding the
security of our elections? At least a fifth of
Americans already have real concerns about the
fairness of the 2004 Elections. That is a remarkably
high number for an issue so basic to our Democracy,
especially since so little real coverage has been
given to it by most of the mainstream media. I defy
you to justify the importance and relevance of 90% of
your current programming over the significance of
these hearings.

With more than a little alarm and disappointment,

Tom Rinaldo"

[rdmccur]

50. vERY WELL SAID

[texpatriot2004]

48. If that's how they want to play this...

fine by me. My boots were made for walking.

[geo]

51. I called.... they say they couldn't get a camera there...

All we can do at this point is remind them that for many of us, this is our only way of seeing this. I realize there is a lot going on today, but this should not have been overlooked. :) -G

[spoogly]

52. They just got a number of email from me

one from each account. I managed to keep from typing a certain four letter combination on each email. It was not easy. I can't believe they now have some BS conference on from the American Enterprise Institute on CSPAN 2 but they cannot air the Conyers hearings. Couldn't they have run the hearings instead of this right wing conference from earlier today? They couldn't at least put the hearings on CSPAN 2.

I have to think they got pressure from "certain other" places.

Friggin Pawns just like the rest of the networks.

[senegal1]

53. I called about an hour ago and was also told the camera story

I was nice to the receptionist and left a message on the voice mail to comment but am really disturbed to see that they DID have a crew in Ohio just a few blocks away.

[texpatriot2004]

54. The camera excuse is sooo LAME! Right up there with nobody

was able to go there and cover it. BS!

[senegal1]

57. I wish I had known that at the time and could have told the

nice receptionist to not spread mistruth -- in a nice way of course.

[shiina]

55. This is really strange...

People have been getting all sorts of different answers from CSPAN. They told some people, after the hearings, that they might show it later, which means they must have taped it. But they told others they hadn't taped it. What's up?

I can't believe they wouldn't have taped it, not with the media attention it's been getting lately. They're smart enough to know that things like this can become really big.

[texpatriot2004]

56. I agree, they taped it alright. I know it and they know it too.

It is too strange. They haven't covered very well either.

[texpatriot2004]

58. kick it