Dear friends here on Opednews:
As many of you know I posted a diary stating why I have withdrawn from posting to Opednews and why I have been a bit disgusted, I will confess, in some areas (even while I also want to say how impressed I am with so many of you here who are so proactive, have your own blogs, etc. so please keep my statement in context!)
In response to my diary, the input overwhelmingly was "Opednews is a good source of cutting-edge news". I agree. That was never my "beef" and my main point was not heard. Let me voice some concerns now, and hopefully some of you will keep these in mind as you post here in the future.
A) When an author researches prior to writing a diary or an article, as all of you know, there is much time involved. Even more importantly, there is a lot of emotional energy involved in seeing a change implemented during such dark, dark times as we have been through in the past eight years.
Similarly, and I am not talking about my own articles but some very important ones by David Swanson and other really good authors/activists, I find it disheartening when key issues are not "Dugg" or sent to "Reddit" and voted to the top of the page. What's wrong with pressing a button and promoting extremely important things? Why are Opednews members not doing more of this? I think this is very wrong, under the circumstances in which we have been living. Were it any other time, and if so much wasn't at stake, my response might not be such a strong one.
B) I am quite concerned that we may be unintentionally undermining our credibility by writing in certain ways, and in so doing also undermining our cause. None of this is on purpose, of course: It's all innocent mistakes.
EXAMPLES:
~Writing about election fraud on election day itself will only discourage voters from going to the polls. "Why bother voting?" is the response I often hear from people when talking one-on-one with people about election fraud tactics. If we assert that our articles will not discourage such action based on poor timing, we are probably thinking in our isolated bubble, based on posting to a machine rather than talking to live people. Please think about the timing of posting certain articles, in the future.
~When discussing such deeply serious matters as the FEMA camps, opinions will only be "Read" as "conspiracy theory" by anyone who is new to the subject and uninformed. True, those of us here who already know something about them will know better, but that's not the case for anyone new to the subject. I suggest it's terribly important to reference highly credible sources, even when expressing opinions. Der Spiegel in Germany has printed articles about the FEMA camps, the US Executive Order is really "Something" to look at, etc.
If we choose to vent our concerns, future projections and opinions, I strongly suggest that we qualify them as such. Because if we don't, we will "lose" our readers and the spin-off from that is, potentially, not a joke. Consider: IF our worst nightmares really did come true (and let's hope with the new Administration that they will not), and if people really WERE hauled off to FEMA camps just because they spoke up, then would this have happened if our articles had been highly credible to the uninformed readers? After all, if readers dismiss us as "Conspiracy nuts", then there is no credibility for the cause. And that' s exactly what enables such dynamics as FEMA camps to occur. Rather than successfully preventing such horrors by our written word, we may actually have enabled the crimes by being non-credible ourselves.
Please think about it folks: It's no longer a matter of "Me and my good writing" "Opednews is a great place" etc...it's not about censorship and it's not about ego or anything else. It's all about protecting human well-being and this is not a joke to play with. We MUST take an ethical responsibility here. Please be sure to back up all writing with the most highly credible sources or we risk being viewed as "conspiracy nuts" and losing the highly important cause of transparency in government. Thanks!
C) When writing about searing truths and exposees, I suggest it's terribly important to stress the hope alongside the dark matters. Let me hereby make my intentions very clear: I am NOT advocating sugar-coating the truth, withholding the truth, and I am NOT advocating censorship. Far from it! How many of you have read my articles in which I posted FBI documents (obtained from the ACLU's website) which "blew the whistle" on Congress, the FBI itself, etc? Are you kidding me?
What I *am* saying is that we should all consider the demotivation factor to readers. Isn't it clear to us by now, after all our years of living, that people heave a great sigh of despair when confronted with raw truths and just simply don't know what to do to change things?
That's why our role as activists needs to be to motivate people with hope. It's terribly important, pivotal even, to seeing the "Change" Obama is talking about and which we all so much want. (And based on what did Obama make it to public office? Two words: "Hope" and "Change". If that is so, then wouldn't our own writing make bigger circles when drafted based on the same two words and concepts?)
Alongside our truth-based exposees, to stress the hope may be exemplified in this way:
~If the ACLU says that protestors against Bush and his cause are routinely corralled to areas away from the media, while those in support of Bush are always allowed within camera range, then there is an obvious solution. That is, take your cellphones with you! Use them. Photograph the evidence, post it to the web, etc. With such handy and easily-accessible tools as our ordinary cell phones, we citizens can become our own photojournalists. No longer need we rely on our censored and controlled press. We can break through, especially if we ask that our articles be forwarded by readers all over the web. When I have made such a request, people have really followed through. This has indeed been very heartening. It works! And thank you all for your great help in this area. And it really has been great.
That's an example of exposing the raw truth while also providing hope. It does not sugar-coat the truth. It simply provides a solution. And that's what I am suggesting is terribly important for us activists to do.
Another example would be to stress to readers that when watching video footage of a FEMA camp, or reading some other hair-raising exposee, that they are part of the solution just by virtue of reading or seeing the video. Because with transparency, no longer will such horrors as the holocaust be possible, thanks to the Internet and how rapidly word really can spread. Ask others to spread the word, stressing again to their readers that their mere participation is part of the solution, and why. See? Once again, here is an example of how to stress the hope without sugar-coating the truth. Far from it. In fact, we are promoting it, yet we are also being part of the solution in so doing.
D) After having written about 150 articles/diaries here on Opednews, the discouragement factor became a strong one for me when people overwhelmingly posted negative input to my articles. I don't give up easily, especially when I have strong feelings about something. So I put up with it for a long time and continued on in my work, undaunted. But there does come a point when a person becomes disgusted too.
For example, when asking readers to write letters to the editor, they would give every reason why it would NOT work and why they would NOT do it and why the didn't WANT to. Well it's fully understandable that people are discouraged by our censored press, and so I wrote back on a continual basis that there are other ways to go. If we think the mainstream newspapers would not print our letters, we could try the local papers and College editorial boards. Even that produced negative input and "No we WON'T" etc.
Folks we have a responsibility here. We all get the America which we work for. Or better said, which we don't work for. Edmund Burke said it very well:
"Sometimes the greatest evils are committed by the silence of good people".
Thank you all for your consideration.
