here's the thing.
I'm perfectly capable of ignoring diaries that I'm not interested in.
apparently, neither of you are capable of doing the same thing---instead, we are all supposed to follow in lockstep behind the Great and Powerful Kos, and his acolyte, Kid Oakland.
The reality of the situation is this....even if you believe that Bev Harris is not credible, she has accomplished a great deal, and has many, many supporters.
Just because YOU don't believe that Bev Harris was told there was a media lockdown doesn't mean that she was not told there was a media lockdown. I know from personal experience---talking to newspaper editors and reporters---that there was a "media lockdown" on stories about the 2000 election that suggested that Bush was not elected legitimately. At first, the "lockdown" was based on the fact that the NORC consortium was still doing its work, and all the stories would come out once the NORC report was released. THEN 9-11 happened, and I was told by TWO editors who were part of the consortium that a collective decision was made to delay the results, and downplay them, "for the good of the country".
This is really a case of your unwillingness to do the necessary original research to make sense of all of the various accusations flying around. Some of them are pure "tinfoil hat" accusations, others are dubious, while quite a few are well founded. And it takes a LOT of work to figure out which is which.
And just because you are too damned lazy to do that work doesn't mean that the work is not worthwhile.