Tuesday, June 18, 2024

C-Span Rewards Student's Factual Inaccuracies

May 12, 2024

To: Students Taylor Chay, Jemma Nagel & their counselor, Jeff Montooth, C-Span & C-Span's Classroom & StudentCam (the "group")
at bottom

bcc: Administration, Teaching and Counseling Staff, Long Beach Polytechnic High School (Ca)
National Council for Social Studies, among others
at bottom
 
Subject: Why were fact checking, vetting and critical thinking avoided, on purpose?
 
RE: "Death Penalty: A Loss of Life and Liberty"
3rd place winner of StudentCam, C-SPAN's 2024 annual national video documentary competition
Directed, Produced and Edited by Taylor Chay and Jemma Nagel, w/advisor Jeff Montooth
 
From:  Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

======
Insert note - It took 8 emails for the teachers and administrators to comprehend that fact checking and vetting were important (emails upon request). Students Taylor Chay, Jemma Nagel & their counselor, Jeff Montooth, C-Span & C-Span's Classroom & StudentCam (the "group") all violated that by rewarding error after error with, essentially, an A+ when, based upon accuracy, it was an F.  Why? No fact checking, no vetting, no critical thinking, violating, precisely, what teachers are supposed to teach to get the true and accurate answers from their students. Basic. Fundamental. 
======
 
Preface
 
Can you not fact check, not vet and not use critical thinking, accidentally? Of course not.
 
Reviewing C-Span's lack of fact checking, vetting and critical thinking (1,2, FN at, very, bottom), we can see that they are, now, rewarding students for, following that behavior.
 
Note that my review of C-Span was, first, delivered to them on March 5th and the StudentCam award was presented on March 13th, seemingly, showing C-Span's dedication to that behavior.
 
Is there another reason? 
 
=====
 
Did it, never, enter the minds of the group to fact check, vet, nor use critical thinking (1,2, FN at very bottom), for any of the material within the "documentary"? 
 
Everything within the group's documentary is, rebutted, below, with the exception that Kwame Ajamu was, indeed, actually innocent. Likely, that had nothing to do with being responsible, but instead was just dumb luck, on the part of the group, as detailed.
 
Clearly, sadly and easily, the group avoided fact checking, vetting and any thinking, as detailed and proven, with all sources:
 
1) Nagel/Chay: "You can free the wrongly convicted but you cannot bring the executed back to life."
 
Sharp reply: Think. You cannot bring, back to life, the factually innocent who died within custody. Some 5000 people die in US criminal custody, every year. We execute about 30 murderers/yr, meaning, it is, more, likely, by a huge margin, that the factually innocent are much more likely to die within custody than with execution, even more so, considering that the death penalty is the only sanction with super due process, in pre-trial, trial, within appeals and within the executive branch's consideration of pardon or commutation.
 
My guess, the group didn't even consider that, nor this:
 
The death penalty/executions protect more innocents, in four ways, than does a life sentence (below).
 
There is no proof of innocents executed, at least since 1915.
 
One wonders: Why did the group decided to sacrifice more innocents by sparing guilty murderers? Such is a well-known pattern, by anti-death penalty folks, as detailed.
 
Since 1973, there has been 500,000 ADDITIONAL innocents murdered by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals. Group?
 
2) Kwame Ajamu: "Why do we kill people to prove to people that killing people is wrong."
 
Sharp reply: We don't, of course.  Think. Most people are aware that murder is wrong, even when we never find the guilty perpetrators or when we punish them with sanctions that range from probation to execution. Ajamu's quote is a standard, idiotic one that anti- death penalty folks celebrate, with no thinking, equating all "killings" with no understanding of the moral or ethical differences between the innocents raped and murdered and the just executions of their guilty rapist/murderers. As all sanctions, executions are based within justice, a sanction not too lenient and not too harsh.
 
The Witness to Innocence group lies about the "innocent"/"exonerated" from death row, as do all anti-death penalty groups, as detailed.
 
The following proves all my claims, with all sources. I doubt the group will fact check and vet, now. They have shown, all of us, that they care, a great deal, not to fact check nor vet nor use critical thinking. It was rewarded.
 
3) The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds 
 71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims,
Well Known Since 1998
 
4) RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS
 
 
 
7) 30 Examples: How Death Penalty Abolitionists Value Murderers  More Than Their Innocent Victims:
AKA - Full Rebuttal of Sir Richard Branson & His Death Penalty Comments
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/04/full-rebuttal-of-sir-richard-branson.html
 
 
9) Lethal Injection & Nitrogen Hypoxia: Controversies Resolved
 
10) Texas Death Penalty Procedures: Super Due Process
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/texas-death-penalty-procedures.html
 
11) Sister Helen Prejean: Her Lies, Deceptions . . . and/or 
Astounding Willful Ignorance? - A Compilation
 
In closing
 
I am disheartened that students are celebrated for a "documentary" that has no fact checking nor vetting and fails to teach the students that such behavior should be eschewed and corrected, with an advisor and a C-Span that refuses to do so. 
 
How often, with other topics, do they act in such a fashion, detrimental to both the truth and to the students?
 
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victims' families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/ 
====== 
======
 
Research, with sources, fact checking, vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
 
Most will realize that the media has been using only anti-death penalty claims and , then, failed to fact check, vet, not use critical thinking, with that research, while avoiding all pro-death penalty research and experts, for decades. How do I know most will realize this? Because they wouldn't have seen any of this, prior:
 
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts listed)
 

To: 64 at Polytechnic High School (Ca)
Cc: journal@c-span.org, blamb@c-span.org, sswain@c-span.org, MGeerges@c-span.org, pmcgorry@c-span.org, rnewton@c-span.org, educate@c-span.org, ZLowe@c-span.org, CMcAndrew@c-span.org, rkennedy@c-span.org, booktv@c-span.org, AmericanHistoryTV@c-span.org, radio@c-span.org, JHolland@c-span.org
 
Posted by at