New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley has a piece (8/31/11) about Al Sharpton's debut as an MSNBC host. It seems his show, like others on the channel, could use more of a debate:
On Monday Mr. Sharpton followed the patented formula, bringing in two experts who agreed with him that recent efforts in North Carolina and other states to stiffen voter-identity requirements and restrict early voting would mostly affect the minorities and younger voters who turned out in record numbers for Barack Obama in 2008. Mr. Sharpton called it a "poll tax by another name." It's an interesting issue, and not one that other MSNBC talkshows have addressed with the same degree of passion, but it would also have been helpful to viewers to learn how proponents of voting restrictions justify the legislation.
While diversity of viewpoints is a nice goal, this is one of those issues where the "other side" doesn't have much of a case. Voter ID laws are, in theory, supposed to protect against voter fraud–which is an almost completely nonexistent problem. Stanley's paper has written a couple of editorials about this, citing the Brennan Center's excellent work on the issue.
There are obviously plenty of things you can say about Al Sharpton or MSNBC. Wishing that his show would feature more guests spewing misinformation is hardly "helpful."
About Peter Hart
"And for the voter suppression perspective, we take you live to the bowels of hell and former Mississippi governor Ross Barnett.
Welcome to the program, Governor."
"Thanks for having me, Al."
[...] http://www.fair.org/blog/2011/08/31/nyt-tv-critic-sharptons-show-could-use-more-misinformation/ . [...]
Michael Moore has also been chastised for being too one sided in his documentaries. In answer he pointed out that you can get the other side of things by tuning in to any major news channel.
not sure i agree that " Wishing that his show would feature more guests spewing misinformation is hardly 'helpful,' "
if after they spewed their misinformation , mr. sharton replied, "you're spewing misinformation; voter fraud is an almost completely nonexistent problem. The new york times has written editorials about this, citing the brennan center's excellent work on the issue," i'd see THAT as helpful
The GOP War on Voting
In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working
to prevent millions of Democrats from voting next year
by Ari Berman
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/01-3
What will suppress turnout more in 2012?
These neo-Jim Crow laws?
Or a Democratic Party only a masochist could love?
In D.C. sandbags were given out to residents for protection from IRENE…They had to show ID …. and no one protested … credit/debit card use w/out ID…not even in liquor stores – get a grip – Hey, Al , who's paying you to take this stand!! Or maybe you have never heard of the illegal alien vote!!
@ Isabel Clarke: Driving is a privilege, voting is a right.
I never trust nor have any respect for Black men who in 2011 are still straightening their hair. Actually Sharpton seems to be one of the very, very, very few.
Mate, it is their hair?
"In D.C. sandbags were given out to residents for protection from IRENEâ┚¬Ã‚¦They had to show ID â┚¬Ã‚¦. and no one protested â┚¬Ã‚¦ credit/debit card use w/out IDâ┚¬Ã‚¦not even in liquor stores â┚¬“ get a grip â┚¬“ Hey, Al , who's paying you to take this stand!! Or maybe you have never heard of the illegal alien vote!!"
1. Voting is a right. The new voting laws in Arizona deprived a 102-year-old woman who had been voting her entire life the right to vote because she had no birth certificate. She was born before Arizona issued birth certificates.
2. There are large numbers of citizens who have the right to vote but no ID. Due to poverty it is difficult for many of these people to jet around and collect the necessary requirements so they are more likely to focus on getting money and feeding themselves than they are to jump through extraordinary hoops to exercise their RIGHTS.
div
3. Get a grip-the illegal alien vote is a myth. Extensive studies of voter fraud have discovered it to be a non-existent problem. A handful of individuals are prosecuted in every year. The real cases that are easy to detect-like Mitt Romney using his son's unfinished basement as his voting address when he he clearly lives in his big mansion out-of-state go unremarked while we try to punish the poor (who are less likely to vote to begin with) for wanting to try to be part of the system.
It sounds as if Ms. Stanley needs to get her info straight. I didn't see it that way as Rev. Al is usually right on about the issues, especially racial. He should know as lives through it everyday.
isabel clarke are you a fox plant?
Nobody wants to have anyone vote in our elections if they don't in fact have that RIGHT…however, It seems to me that the most egregious fraud in "voting" has been perpetrated by those being voted 'for', not the voters.
I agree with Mr. Kerr. I lived in Florida when "everyone" voted for baby Bush. There was intimidation at the superindents office by people who had licenses from Texas. One whole district couldn't vote because of disinformation. The district was Democratic and Black. There was extensive outcry after the election, but to my knowledge, nothing was done about it. Districts are getting "rearranged" in every state so that the Democratic majority is no more in those districts. This is what we need to be aware of and do something about. I don't want to be bullied at election time every again.
Well I personally find it useful to hear the best arguments for and against something, but all too often those favoring a particular position, will find someone who puts forth half baked arguments against their position and than proceed to make them look ridiculous. It amounts to bullying. Why not go against the best arguments and show that they are deficient. Of course if one takes the attitude that no one could ever present a reasonable case against ones position, then one does not have to acknowlege that there are reasonable arguments against one's position. The idea is that if one only wants to convince viewers they are right, then one does not have to raise any doubts at all, and the best way is to only present one point of view.
I suspect that the number of unregistered voters that improperly vote pales in comparison with the hi-jinks that go on outside the confines of the voting booth, but concern for people who vote who are not eligible is a legitimate concern, and also it is a concern that establishing eligibility to vote should not prove onerous. I think, myself, these are points worthy of an honest discussion.
Maybe Stanley needs a fact-checker or someone who knows history (Jim Crow laws then and now). That said, while I hate using Wiki, it\'s about Alessandra Stanley\'s creds.
"Several news and media organizations, including the Times, have criticized the accuracy of Stanley's reporting…Among the articles that they have criticized are a September 5, 2005 piece on Hurricane Katrina,… a 2005 article that called the sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond "All About Raymond",.. and a July 18, 2009 retrospective on the career of Walter Cronkite that contained eight research and spelling errors… In an August 2009 article examining the mistakes in the Cronkite piece, Clark Hoyt, the Times's public editor, described Stanley as "much admired by editors for the intellectual heft of her coverage of television" but "with a history of errors".
Old Al should look at the percentage of Iraqi voters that voted in their elections.Higher than here in our country.And getting to those voting booths at the risk of your life was no cake walk.And I would bet most of those poor people make out poor look rich.Nothing wrong with asking people to be able to at least identify themselves as legal voters.Without that we may have voter fraud.We would not want that now would we?Well would we?
there is no voter fraud [at least among voters]
A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud â┚¬“ and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility.
A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud. "Our democracy is under siege from an enemy so small it could be hiding anywhere," joked Stephen Colbert.
A 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a leading advocate for voting rights at the New York University School of Law, quantified the problem in stark terms. "It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning," the report calculated, "than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830
Woodward
Those stats are…".interesting".Out of 300 million only 86 caught huh?Why how many murderers are there out of three hundred million?How many mass murderers?How many are in fact struck by lightning?
My point……..I don't think that stat reflects anything but an absolute mathematical certainty the no one is really investigating,arresting or prosecuting people involved in voter fraud.It seems to empirically prove that our standards today are working near perfectly .Or that we have somehow ,overnight magically grown the most honest electorate in the history of the world.Bulldoggies
Statistically speaking, there is no voter fraud. The Republicon party must stop folks from voting, or at least showing up to vote, if it expects to win. This is well-known amongst the smarter, informed Republicans. If every one who could vote would vote, there would be no Republicon party, and we'd have a lot better country and democracy.
In our soon-to-come Republicon paradise, there will be an official government office, perhaps called the Control And Destroy Voters Who Vote Too Much Office. There, billlions will be wasted to catch the dozen or so truoble-makers who still try to vote for the non-Rightwing candidate. Show trials will be televised, and the drugged, beaten democrats will be forced to confess their sins live. Perhaps Our Very Own Troll above can be one of the mock prosecutors, droning on for hours on end about the glories of the current reich.
Only way the Rs can win/???Tim Im wondering how they can possibly loose.Stop the fear mongering.Its old old hat.
Hey MR Charon, You said: "I suspect that the number of unregistered voters that improperly vote pales in comparison with the hi-jinks that go on outside the confines of the voting booth, but concern for people who vote who are not eligible is a legitimate concern, and also it is a concern that establishing eligibility to vote should not prove onerous. I think, myself, these are points worthy of an honest discussion."
Wow, I have not heard much about those folks who vote without being registered. In MD it is impossible to vote without registering. Each election, I have to show my card and they cross refernce it to their listing of registered voters. What states are YOU referring to?
To be eligible you have to register, and registering makes you eligible, so what are you saying? Who are these amorphous folks that are able to vote with their ineligibility? And how many are there 1, 2, maybe? The stats show voter fraud is conservative bafflegab.
Isabel Clarke – Or maybe you have never heard of the illegal alien vote!!
Never heard it. Is that a Fox News thing?
Jeff Thompson says:
@ Isabel Clarke: Driving is a privilege, voting is a right.
That's the old conservative adage. I would have to disagree with you Jeff. Both are priviledges and both are rights. In a time that driving to work may be the only way to sustain your family in a society where the infrastructure emphazises an automobile as the primary means of transportation driving has moved beyond the priviledge stage and can be defined as a right. Albeit, a right you can forfeit if abused since one of the requirements is that you respect other rights to use our roads. You have as much a right to drive as you may have had to own and ride a horse and/or buggy in the 19th Century.
Voting is also a right and at the same time the priviledge of being able to participate in a democratic process. Of course I refer to our democracy in platitudes since our democratic process is corrupt.