(I am not David, but a fellow Ron Paul supporter that found this post on dailypaul.com. Ironically the WSJ article was written about the media smearing Ron Paul supporters)
In Response to the Wall Street Journal Article:
Paul's Supporters Clash With Media
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I am David Chesley, and was interviewed for 47 minutes over the phone for this article. Even though I was interviewed over the phone for 47 minutes there was not a single quote from that interview in the article. I estimate that 70% of my conversation with the journalist was about Ron Paul's positions on the issues and why I support him. I also estimate that 30% of my interview with the journalist was pointing out specific examples of coverage in the press that has been completely biased.
The interview was conducted after Glenn Beck called us all terrorists, Sean Hannity refuted his own debate polls, the MSM erroneously referred to us as "weird," "radicals," "extremists," saying that we are "up to mischief," and Soledad O'Brien continued to call RP an isolationist 5(x) in a row after apologizing for calling him an isolationist in a previous interview. All of this I mentioned to the journalist. I could hear the sound of her keyboard and could tell she was not typing in the portion of the interview when I discussed Soledad's biased reporting. As stated above the journalist did not mention any of these points above in her article. I pointed out that most AP polls and MSM news programs have not included Ron Paul even though he has more money than all but one Republican candidate, Guiliani. I informed Ms. Shatz that Romney was actually in the hole by millions of dollars, and had to borrow money for his campaign. The journalist immediately retorted with something to the effect of (paraphrasing here) "Well, yeah but he plans to earn that back eventually."
I pointed out how the MSM polls directly contradict Ron Paul's results in straw polls nationwide, and I mentioned that Ron Paul won more straw polls than any other Republican candidate. Not online straw polls, but real straw polls, and I directed her to these results on Ron Paul's website. She neglected to mention this. I explained to her how the corporate media was attempting to denounce Paul's supporters and turn Ron Paul into a fringe candidate by constantly referring to him as a Libertarian, even though he is a ten term Republican Congressman. I explained all of this politely and factually. Mostly, I explained all of the reasons I support Ron Paul's positions and what those positions are (for brevity will not repeat here). None of this was mentioned in the article.
Of course the article could be seen as an obvious attempt to quell dissent, and curb enthusiasm for Ron Paul. Some people are suggesting that based on this article and the views of a small opposition that seeks to suppress our message, that we must all quiet down, be polite, and watch what we say... Please remember, when you are fighting for your liberty and freedom there is no rule that says you must be polite about it. The Bush administration was not very polite to lie and have 665,000 innocent people killed in Iraq, and neither was the media polite to support this war, which is nothing short of an imperialist holocaust committed under false pretenses. We do not all have to be careful what we say, etcetera. That is a joke. We must be ourselves and speak our minds.
Anyway, I am not surprised by the article, and as I thanked Ms. Shatz over the phone for providing coverage to Ron Paul, I thank her again here. Remember, she has corporate bosses to answer to, namely Rupert Murdoch, who outright supports Hillary Clinton. Murdoch sends daily memos to his journalists with talking points see the movie "Outfoxed." It is not Ms. Shatz's fault that circumstances have forced her to work in a media environment where the message is entirely controlled by the military/industrial complex. I must have faith and believe that she has good intentions, or is merely trying to earn a living. She was afterall, a pleasant person to speak with. I am proud of what I was quoted for writing in the article, because what I wrote was true, and not a blatant attempt to mischaracterize any group of people or to misrepresent the facts. As I promised you all, I am providing her contact info for you to thank her for the article, or use as you see fit.
Best,
David S. Chesley, Esq. :)
www.myspace.com/daveche
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson (an 'incendiary comment' provided by the member of an 'anti-government fringe group')
Her message to me:
I’m working on a story about Ron Paul and his online support and saw some of the things you’ve been posting on DailyPaul and MySpace. I’d like to talk to you for the story, if you have a few minutes. When would be a good time for me to contact you?
Thanks for considering the request,
Amy
======================
Amy Schatz
The Wall Street Journal
w: (202) 862-6631
c: (202) 422-2689
amy.schatz@wsj.com
======================
