From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.news-media,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: [alt.activism,alt.censorship] Censoring Democracy in New Hampshire
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:03:24 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

A repost from alt.activism,alt.censorship:

From: guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone)
Subject: Censoring Democracy in New Hampshire
Date: 4 Oct 92 22:19:01 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


                 Censoring Democracy in New Hampshire

  Our nation is grounded in the principles of limited and indirect
democracy.  Limited because the rights of individuals and minorities
are ostensibly protected against the will of the majority by our Bill
of Rights.  Indirect because we the people do not ourselves propose and
vote on legislation, but instead delegate that task to elected officials.
So that we may choose those representatives that best serve our interests,
we require access to complete and undistorted information on the issues,
on present day events, and of course, on the candidates: who they are
and, in their own words, where they stand.  Unfortunately, in this day
of increasingly centralized corporate ownership of the media, our access
to that necessary information is being slowly strangled.  We have allowed
the corporate media to define what constitutes a "serious" candidacy, and
to screen out those candidates that do not represent their own narrow
interests.
  This screening process is most effectively applied to the unwanted
candidates early in their political careers.  The method employed is
simple: they are denied equal access to the voting public, their
credibility is minimized, and as much as possible, they are ignored.
As a case in point, consider the coverage given by WMUR, Channel 9
(New Hampshire's "flagship" station and the only source of local television
news for many in the state), to the candidacy of Jeanne Stapleton, a
Democrat running for the U.S Senate in the recent New Hampshire primaries.
When she announced her candidacy, the event was reported by WMUR, but her
name was reported incorrectly (the name of a different candidate was
given in place of her name).  She called the station to inform them of
their error, but the station never issued a correction.  She was denied
recognition in series of free television spots designed to "educate" the
public on the coming election [1].  The final blow came on the night of the
election, and in the following days.  Her description of the events that
followed election day was given in a letter printed in a local
newspaper [2]:

-------------------------------

To the Editor,
  Does a television station have the right to choose to withhold the
election results of some candidates (their choice of course)?  Three
days ago I would have said, "No, of course not.  They are users of
our "public" airwaves.  They have an obligation to post results of all
candidates.  They can't just choose not to list some candidates."
Wrong.
  I campaigned all summer for the U.S. Senate.  I ran because the working
class needs a voice.  I ran on little money but lots of effort.  No TV
ads.
  Election night I watched Channel 9, our major source of information in
New Hampshire's southern tier.  As the numbers were announced for other
"lesser known" candidates, I kept wondering, where was the report on my
tally?  Where was the report on Lynn Rudman Chong's tally?  By 10:30 p.m.,
I called the station because something seemed odd to me.  I knew I had
some votes (at least my own for sure).  They said I had no votes.  I
watched until 12:30 a.m., no tally.  Meanwhile, reports were in for all
of the Republican candidates (1 percent, 2 percent, etc.)
  By 7 a.m. Wednesday, there were still no reports of any votes for me.
Imagine how you would feel.  At 7:10 we noticed that, unlike the others,
the Democratic Senate tally did not add up to 100 percent, 14 percent
of the votes were missing.  We called the Associated Press.  Jeanne
Stapleton had 10 percent of the votes.  I was outraged!  This while they
were reporting 1 and 2 percent Republican tallies.  They chose not to
report my 10 percent.  This is an insult not only to me, but the voters
who voted for me.
  I called Wednesday morning to let them know about their omission and I
was ignored.  The 6 p.m. news ran all Republicans reported, whether they
had as little as 2 percent, yet, still no mention of my 10 percent.
Outrage!  All day Wednesday and Thursday voters asked me why my tallies
weren't listed.  I have called Channel 9 three times, and have yet to have
my call returned.  Poor manners to say the least.
  I plan to run again and I have lost forever the opportunity for the
television public to see that there are at least 8,000 people who support
me.  I still can't believe they can get away with this travesty of justice
and betrayal of the use of the public airwaves.  Those who control
information control the people.  We all know that from looking at China,
the U.S.S.R., etc.  What I am appalled at, is that exactly the same thing
occurs in the cradle of democracy.  It is more than an outrage.  WMUR, in
its arrogance, has betrayed the public trust and I question whether they
should be trusted with the airwaves that are the primary source of
information for many busy people.  Every candidate and every voter has a
right to this information, without the arrogant, partisan power of
Channel 9's decision makers.
  If you agree that this is a travesty of justice not to be ignored,
please call Channel 9 at (603) 641-9000.  Thanks for the help to
democracy.
                                    JEANNE STAPLETON
                                    New Boston, N.H.
------------------------

 I believe that this incident is not just an isolated event, but an
example of a pervasive flaw in our society.  For anyone wishing to write or
call in protest of this subversion of democracy, the addresses and phone #'s
are:

                       WMUR
                       P.O Box 9
                       Manchester NH 03105

                       Ph. #: (603)641-9000

Their parent company is:

                       IMES Inc.
                       Columbus MS 39701

Other parties responsible:

                       Complaints Compliance and Investigation
                       Federal Communications Commission
                       Room 6218
                       2025 M St. N.W.
                       Washington DC 20554

                       Ph. #: (202)632-7048
-----------------------
[1] The preceding three sentences contain a summary of the events
    as described by Jeanne Stapleton in a telephone interview.

[2] Jeanne Stapleton's letter was printed in the "Valley News", Lebanon NH,
    Friday, Sept. 25, 1992.  It is reproduced here with her permission.
-----------------------

 -Guy Schiavone                       Guy.Schiavone@Dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution