Carlos Porter on Nuremberg (PDF ONLY)
Ernst Zündel (extensive bio)
Copyright (c) 1998 - Ingrid A. Rimland
When it comes to what plays at the movies, I might as well live on the moon. I am not a movie goer - give me a good book anytime!
It seems there is a new Star Wars movie out that has some horror scenes about what happens when races mix-and-mingle in the hay, destroying old genetic patterns and producing a different breed.
A friend of mine, a passionate Letter to the Editor writer, watched that movie, and decided to write one of her blasts about preserving what nature had crafted.
Apparently she said there was a lesson to be learned about respecting the uniqueness of different races, including, please, her own White race she had observed to be under multicult siege right where she lived, in California.
Back came a sharp editorial reply. It snidely informed my friend that she had written a "hate" letter that could not possibly be printed in the letters section where previous letters of hers had appeared.
My friend called me, aggrieved, and asked what to do next. She insisted, near tears, she was not in the habit of writing "hate" letters and would not take this lying down. No hate monger, she! No way! She wanted my advice.
I told her to call the editor and ask for written policy guidelines so that she could avoid in the future getting herself gravely mislabeled. I also told her to remind them of the First Amendment, in case the paper had forgotten.
This she did - and that is all it took. Her letter ran in the paper, to no complaints at all.
This morning I received some wonderful advice along those lines, which I am passing on to you, in hopes that those of you who always want to know what you might do to help our struggle, might learn from and apply.
One of my ZGram readers said the following:
HOW TO GET LETTERS PUBLISHED
When I was in the public light for some years, the senior editor of the daily paper (a major one) and I had an unwritten agreement. They would lie about me in the paper. I would write a letter to rebut their lies and tag on some important points I wanted to make. They wouldn't publish. I would phone the editor and chew his ear. They would then publish my reply.
If I had stopped at their refusal to publish, I would hardly ever have had letters published. Their attacks gave me the opportunity to communicate to people. You want to communicate valuable data. So, what to do?
1. Always reply to attacks. They are godsends, an opportunity too good to miss.
2. If your letter is not published quickly, phone and ask (anybody at the paper) if it is in their computer list of letters waiting to be published. You will want to move quickly while the issue is fresh.
3. If not, ALWAYS phone the editor. Be fair, friendly and firmly request that they publish you letter, BECAUSE IT IS IN REPLY TO SOMETHING THEY SAID THAT WAS INCORRECT/FALSE. This is the key. They may be able to blatantly ignore letters that you or others write about general issues, no matter how original, important or brilliant the letter. However, they cannot do so with the same justifications once they attack you. You have a right of reply. You may think they can still do what they like. But it is quite easy to apply pressure in such a case.
If their article is defamatory, the paper would look very bad in court if they don't at least publish your letter, even if they don't retract the false information they published.
Sometimes editors would tell me that I have had a number of letters published already, as though I should be thankful for this and go away. I would tell them that if they don't want to publish my letters, stop saying things about me or my organisation that aren't true. The editor and I continued this excellent working relationship for some years.
I have successfully used these steps with other papers. It is even easier when used with regional or weekly papers. When regional papers have published letters attacking me, I have demanded (nicely) that they publish letters that were up to 1,000 words. Though someone can call you say, a CIA agent, in a short sentence, it is a nonsense to expect you to reply in the usual 250 words. Some of my best works have been published like this.
I have had editors agree that my letter could have been published but the issue is too stale now. I would mention that it would not be stale if they had promptly published my reply. "I still want it published. You can avoid the problem in future by quickly publishing any of my letters correcting your false reports."
I have had some success in talking to a different editor. Once you have an editor that you can work with, find out what to do to get your letters to them to approve. It may be that you send them at the start of their shift or whatever. One can also write to a different paper about the conduct of the first. Talk about free speech. This is always an 'ace up the sleeve' that can work in certain situations.
4. If the editor still refuses to publish, go higher. Contact the Chief of Staff and so on.
5. If still no joy, contact the body that is supposed to keep the papers honest.
6. If that doesn't work, stage a demonstration outside the newspaper, or some other relevant spot. You should only need to do this once to bring home the point that you will not be lied about without having a response printed.
7. If the remarkable happened and your letter still wasn't published, take up a collection and pay to have it put in as an ad. Title it something like "The letter the Tribune refused to publish'.
The idea of the steps is to educate people and to take this valuable opportunity to do so. Once you have applied enough pressure, you will find it easier in future to have letters published. <end>
Thought for the Day:
"The less of routine, the more of life."
(A. B. Alcott)
Back to Table of Contents of the June 1999 ZGrams