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.
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
One would think that after the data has been proven to be
inaccurate that they would stop reporting the data. But, did they?
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 ...
Possess a desire to express your thoughts about this article? If so,
MORE ARTICLES BY THIS AUTHOR
NOVEMBER 5, 2004
*** This article may not be duplicated, published, transmitted, or
copied without the prior written consent of the author ***