[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 7/8/04
Time: 8:37:49 PM
Remote Name: 68.255.243.104
Lollie,
Now I’m the one who needs to apologize. Your post was not written badly. Mine was. Sorry about that. I didn’t mean to be offensive either. Only one of us hear ever does – and he knows who he is.
Enough of the apologies, okay?
I’m thinking that we have to take the shotgun approach as well as the rifle approach. That is, it might be wise to get a wide dispersal of targets AND take well-aimed shots.
For the shotgun approach we have to collect at least a hundred names of radio and television personalities, writers, commentators, producers, associate producers, politicians – anyone with media influence or access to media influence. Often you can get more done with people lower on the power ladder than you can with the ones on top.
For the rifle approach we need specific information about the people we write to and target the areas that we know they are sensitive to. All we want to do is interest them in the idea that they can go down in history for “discovering” what we already know. We can’t let our egos get in the way. I don’t think any of us care who gets credit for turning things around with the O.J. case with the impact we know it has had and will continue to have on so many other cases (Just ask Michael Skakel or Scott Peterson). We want to find someone who does want the credit and feed them enough information to make them heroes.
A few well-chosen words (nothing over three-quarters of a page) and links from enough of us at the right intervals might do it. If we work together, the cumulative effect should be that they have enough information they can’t disregard to pay attention and not so much that they are discouraged from looking at it.
Right now we just need names and titles (Brenda X, associate producer of NBC Nightly New – that sort of thing). We’ve got a few. Lets see how many more we can come up with.
Does anybody else have any ideas? –Jasper