I saw this on Fox News (online) and thought it was interesting. It has nothing to do with media-bias one way or the other, but it does show how both sides wanted to manipulate the media to possibly change the outcome of Nov. 2nd.
This is an excerpt from Fox News, no real need to click the link if you don't want to, this is the entire blurb.
"After FOX News Channel projected President Bush the winner of Ohio (search) on election night, the Kerry campaign called ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, urging them, according to the Washington Post, to refrain from making the same projection.
But by that time, NBC had already called Ohio for President Bush. The other three, though, didn't call the state for President Bush until later Wednesday morning.
In the meantime, the President's political adviser, Karl Rove, called FOX News after we called Ohio, encouraging the network to call New Mexico for President Bush. We declined the request, and didn't call the state until the following afternoon."
Whether we think so or not, this seems to show that how the media reports on election day may have an effect on the outcome.
Do you think if the Kerry campaign had gotten its wish the end result would've changed?
If Rove had gotten his way, would it have changed anything?
Or is this just an attempt to sway public opinion? i.e. if the media "declares" a winner, then the American people would be less likely to question things the next day. For example: If NBC and Fox hadn't called Ohio for Bush on Tuesday night, maybe the public would've been more open to the Kerry camp not conceding and calling for hand counts?
If you disagree with my assumptions, why do you think the Kerry camp and the Bush camp acted in this manner?
Do you think that ABC, CBS and CNN listened to the Kerry camp's request? If not, why do you think that Fox and NBC called Ohio for Bush (hell, even the BBC was calling Ohio for Bush if I remember right - thanks to Mephisto's link) when the others wouldn't?
o.k., o.k., I know. A lot of questions in this one.