Skip navigation

Quick summary:
CNBC.com pulls presidential debate online poll after candidate Ron Paul achieves 70%. CNBC.com claims poll was “hacked”.

Censorship ButtonHere are a few reasons why the removal of the poll by CNBC editor Allen Wastler is extremely weak:

To claim to know that the poll was hacked means that you have the ability to detect such activities. If you can detect when there’s “hacking” going on, why don’t you set up measures against it? Are you and your tech team so incompetent that you cannot implement something as simple as not letting someone vote twice?

Yes, I can understand that American science has no problems with developing complex technologies such as harnessing the power of nuclear fission or the Internet, but stopping voting irregularities is simply a bridge too far. Congratulations Allen Wastler, you’re leading the Most Incompetent Manager poll as well… (by 70%!)

Instead of simply noting that the poll may be subject to irregularities, you remove it altogether. Perhaps you should let the evidence speak for itself rather than succumb to Bush Administration secrecy tactics. Your Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful provides no evidence that your online poll was “hacked”. We’re simply left to take it on faith. This is not how the court of public opinion works, Allen. Without evidence to support your claims, the respectability of you and the organization you represent, dwindles like the opponents of Ron Paul in an online poll by CNBC.com (but was removed when the results were not inline with the upper management’s bias).

A quote from your ‘Open Letter’: “Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.” Ok, we’ve covered the incompetence part so let’s look at “target of a campaign“, the second part of your Supreme Court worthy “either/or” argument strategy (“Your Honor, the victim was viciously murdered… or… he fell down a well. Either way, the defendent must be guilty!“). So the devious Ron Paul supporters joined in a campaign to vote for their preferred candidate… How deliciously sneaky of them! Well, I guess we better start overturning Presidential elections since the establishment of the party system and campaigning. Allen, is this seriously your reasoning? Were you high when you wrote this? Imagine… just imagine a group of people getting together to support their preferred political leader! Preposterous and obvious censorship fodder!

You complain that the sentiments of a few are not serving “the many”. If “the few” attempts to make its voice heard by voting strongly and far more passionately than “the many”, do they not deserve to be heard? Must every poll reflect the numbers that you alone expect it to have? Does this small but vocal group of Ron Paul supporters not have the right to make their point?

When the only voice that’s allowed to be heard is that of the majority, and any dissension is crushed by the hand of the few (that’s you Allen) then you no longer have a democracy.

The United States is ranked 48th in terms of press freedom. Allen Wastler, in recognition of your efforts to push that number even deeper, your Myanmar honorary government post of State Censor awaits you.

Corporate Media - Thanks for nothing

Share this:

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: