KMA-628

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.

Ustwo

Motivations for both seem pretty clear.

If Kerry was going to sue in Ohio, they didn't want the state called as it would look like SoreLooserman II.

Rove wanted NW called so Bush would be over 270 and could come out with a little thank you/victory speech.

It was pretty obvious no one wanted to call that last 270 state, despite having called other states with equal data.

Mathmaticly, Kerry's chance in Ohio was 300-1 against him winning, but they still wouldn't call it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Super Model

It all depends really. I think the biggest problem in 2000 that actually the media was calling in Gore. Then things changed with FL. Same in 2004, people were sitting and waiting who would be this year, as far as a dispute state. It turned out Ohio, even though, you got to hand it over to Democrats, they decided to end it in sooner then later. Right not it is not the time or place to question the ballots, they way you cast the vote, the systems that count them, the world is a different place vs 2000. Allot of policy changing events took place, and to show a week spot with even election, not a good idea.

Even though I did not go to vote, so in a way should not be saying anything, but I adopt the George Carlin approach to elections. I think one should go and vote when you trully believe and like the person, and like what he says and what he intends to do. Neither Bush or Kerry have that. And to go and vote a particular party, I can't, becuase I am having an identity crisis, where I can not identify myself with either one of the parties. And I didn't want to vote for Ralph Naider either... Funny, and I have a master degree in Politics and Economics... I am trully confused. Help.

roachboy

the questions of the media coverage are a bit more complex than this....

these are short papers that summarize findings on the matters and refer to other sources. the politics of the site are progressive, but the survey-based information contained in some of the links interesting nonetheless.

http://www.freepress.net/washington/election.php

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

KMA-628

read some of your link roach, and closed the window after this:

NBC called Florida first for Bush in 2000, not Fox.

NBC called Ohio for Bush way before Fox did. I had Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC and Yahoo up in my browser and CNN and Fox were the last one's to increase electoral count for either candidate. The BBC seemed to be the first one to call a state, from what I saw.

Vilify Fox all you want, but this is hardly an impartial portrayal of the facts. Just as Fox leans right, this link leans left. I can't glean anything from this as you wouldn't be able to glean anything from a link I would post.

Super Model

Interesting. No one said that they were easy, you have to take into account all the factors, how media drives and which candidate it supports. One can argue that the media shoudl be un-bias, but this is not the case...

roachboy

maybe so, kma: i read through the links and thought that the survey material was interesting, even if the writing was not.
anyway, the questions are out there.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

fibber

I think after the 2000 elections, that calling a state would have a decidedly weakened effect on people stopping themselves from going out and still voting.

That debacle showed a lot of people that exit polls are some hellaciously inaccurate beasts.

Personally, it wouldn't keep me from going out, but I can only answer for me.

-fibber

hammer4all

Wrong on both counts...
No, Fox did.
No, Fox called Ohio for Bush well before well before NBC. I was watching this page on election night.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411030001

KMA-628

yep, you're right, I am wrong.

Not sure why I thought that, I was watching (and on the net) and could've sworn that Fox didn't call Ohio first. I honestly thought NBC did it first.

I stand corrected on this one.

aliali

Nail on the head, Ustwo.

I'm still wondering why those exit polls were so wrong and for the second election in a row the buzz was wrongly pro-democratic and was out before the polls closed.