THE LIBERAL MEDIA'S
COVERAGE OF ELECTION 2004
... My view of the election coverage of NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, AND CBS
NOTE TO READERS: All times
listed are CST
I write this at 4:00AM in
the morning of election night, November 3, 2004. My evening started
with CNN and before the evening is over, I will have clicked back and forth
between ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, & CNN more than a couple hundred times.
And friends, the evening was
intriguing indeed.
When I turned on the TV at
6:00PM, I saw sparkles in the eyes of Tom Brokaw and other liberal news
casters. They were downright giddy. And friends, when liberal
news people are giddy, something is up.
At one point, Chris Matthews
said (referring to the President's campaign) "What could they have done to
pull it off tonight?" (notice that usage of past tense?). They were
beginning to spell the end of the Bush Administration even before the polls
in the battleground States began to close.
Even though they were not
saying anything outright, I knew something was up and I was concerned.
So, armed with my computer
and high speed access to the internet, I began to collect exit poll data.
The data was stunning ... clearly showing a Kerry victory in the making.
Ah, ha! Now I had my
answer ... no wonder the liberal media was giddy!
But, after reviewing the
exit data, a few things didn't make sense to me. A lot of it didn't match the polls
that I had examined over the past few weeks ... especially in the last few
days. Even more telling was data that I knew had to be false ...
showing Kerry getting broad support from males in some key Midwestern
states.
I was skeptical.
But yet, the liberal media
was a buzz with giddy news casters trying to keep their emotions in check
while on the air. I settled in to watch the developments.
At one point a little before
7:00PM, Dan Rather raised his hand to try and stop another colleague from
flapping his gums too much and going to far with his assessment of the election and the
end of the Bush Administration. After all, the polls were
still open ... and, Rather didn't want to call the election ... and they were,
um, "professionals".
Then, Pennsylvania went to the
Democratic column and one could almost see the liberal media jumping out of
their skin with excitement.
A little later, things began to turn.
We first witnessed Florida stats coming in very strong for the President.
That fact sent the newscasters into a quizzical mode ... puzzlement was all
over their faces. After all, exit polls showed Kerry winning Florida.
Then, more real numbers began
to roll in for other States sending the newscasters into virtual depression.
Tom Brokaw (NBC) looked white as a ghost. Chris Matthews (CNN) actually got mad
and starting being snippy to his guest. At one point, the camera
caught Dan Rather (CBS) shaking his head in disgust. Judy Woodruff's
(CNN) eyes
literally started to well up with tears. The camera had to break away
from her fast.
Just prior to 3:00AM, the
group at CNN finally admitted that the data gleamed from exit polls was off
and proceeded to have a 15 minute conversation about why the data was so
inaccurate. One newscaster in their group said that the
media had egg on their face, again (referring to the debacle in the 2000
election), and was going to have hell to pay for
conveying their thought that Bush was doomed earlier in the evening.
Wolf Blitzer snapped back, "We didn't verbally project any winner based on
exit polls". The newscaster responded, "Yes, but we sure did infer a
lot of things".
Wolf Blitzer almost came
unglued!
You could see the anger in
his eyes as the panel of three other CNN newsmen agreed that Ohio seemed to
be firmly Bush's and they should move it to the Bush column. After
all, other networks, like NBC, had scored it for Bush earlier in the
evening. One of the panel members, Larry King, even started shaking
his head and muttered ..."seems clear to me". But, Wolf refused.
Why? Resolutely he proclaimed, "We will not move Ohio if Kerry is refuting the
results".
Amazing! So, the actions of
the Kerry campaign defines
their coverage and assessments of when a State should be moved to a
candidate? Stunning!
Back to NBC ... 3:30AM in
the morning ... Tom Brokaw was talking to Brian Williams & Tim Russert.
As usual, Russert was being professional. But, you could see the
regret in Brokaw's eyes as he was explaining to his TV audience why NBC had
moved Ohio to Bush's column. He said their analyst believed that Ohio
belonged to Bush and that Bush's count was at 269 ... one short of the 270
needed. He then proceeded to add (several times) ... "No one can
blame the Kerry Campaign for refuting Ohio." Oh? And why is
that? Then, Brokaw stressed ... "we do not decide elections here".
Well gee, the goal in the
past has always been to be the first to report who won. Hmmm, I guess
things have changed! Referring back to the 2000 debacle, Brokaw had an
out.
They started talking about
reports that the Democratic jets were being readied in Boston to transport a
bevy of lawyers to Ohio. Their eyes were wide with excitement and the
anticipation of the impending legal battle for the Presidency.
Then final stats began to
roll in on Nevada, New Mexico, and Iowa ... all showing that they should be
moved into the Bush column. Doing so would put Bush over 270 ... so,
in essence, they would be calling the election for Bush.
But, Brokaw refused ...
saying "we won't be calling any more States tonight ... we need to sort this
out".
Um, sort what out?
I mean, let's look at the
facts ... They called Ohio for Bush
... and, three other states seem to be in the Bush column as well ...
perhaps there
were questions about Iowa and New Mexico ... but, the stats on Nevada was
quite clear.
Indeed, it appeared quite
clear that Bush had been re-elected. All that is left is to project
that Bush has won the election.
But, even though the hard
numbers are out there for all to see, the media refused to call it for Bush.
Yes, you could see the sparkle in their eye when Kerry refused to concede.
They would contribute to the efforts of the Kerry campaign in the one way
they could ... by not projecting a winner and creating a sense of onus on
the Kerry campaign to provide the burden of proof.
Stunning indeed.
What is additionally intriguing is the media's lack
of ability to recognize bad data. Even after the media became
bewildered
at the inaccuracy of the exit poll data related to the numbers of votes they
showed for Kerry and Bush, they still reported on other data contained in
the exit polls ... such as, what "voters are
thinking".
CNN continued to have little breakaways to a
newscaster telling viewers what voters thought state-by-state throughout the
evening. Reports on subjects such as what viewers thought about the
war, the economy, etc.
One would think that after the data has been
proven to be inaccurate that they would stop reporting the data. But,
did they?
HELL NO!
They still flapped their gums about what voters thought about the war and
other issues well into the wee hours of the morning ... sounding as if the
data was as accurate as could be. After all, they needed to fill the
airwaves with something ... and, who cares if the data is inaccurate.
At one point, after their 15 minute discussion about the inaccurate
exit poll data on
how voters voted, they even went directly to a newscaster who reported on
more data ... data gained through the same exit interviews!
To a logical pragmatist such as myself, those
types of things just confuse the hell out of me.
But, obviously, for the liberal media, it makes sense ...
... somehow.
Possess a
desire to express your thoughts about this article? If so,
contact me.
MORE ARTICLES
BY THIS AUTHOR LAST UPDATED:
November 5, 2004
*** This article
may not be duplicated, published, transmitted, or copied without the prior written consent
of the author ***
|
