Bias Beyond the Pale

[Tigermike 3,057]

Bias Beyond the Pale

Posted by Aslan, 11/03/04, 08:59am. Comments <mailto:googleplex@comcast.net?subject=Bias Beyond the Pale> (11)

Are you aware that the Pennsylvania race was closer (Kerry gets 51.08%) than the Ohio race (Bush gets 51.2%) or Nevada race (Bush gets 51.4%)? Think about this fact. Did the networks have any problem calling Pennsylvania for Kerry? None whatsoever. I believe one network had Pennsylvania in the Kerry column within an hour of the polls closing. And when one considers that absentee ballots always break in the direction of conservatives, the Pennsylvania race will further tighten while the Ohio race widens.

Are you aware that New Hampshire has 99% of the vote in with 50.7245% for Kerry to 49.2755% for Bush and has been called for Kerry?

Are you aware that Wisconsin has 99% of the vote in with 50.2255% for Kerry to 49.7745% for Bush and has been called for Kerry?

Absentee ballots would only make these races tighter.

Are you aware that Iowa has 99% of the vote in with 50.5325% for Bush to 49.4675% for Kerry and has NOT been called for Bush?

Are you aware that New Mexico has 99% of the vote in with 50.8816% for Bush to 49.1184% for Kerry and has NOT been called for Bush?

Are you aware that Nevada has 99% of the vote in with 51.3536% for Bush to 48.6464% for Kerry and has NOT been called for Bush (except for one network)?

Absentee ballots would only make these races wider.

I could write a commentary here, but why bother?

Comments

1: Ryan Fletcher November 3, 2004 10:28am EST

I noticed the same thing. The gap in Ohio is wider in favor of Bush than the gap in Pennsylvania is in favor of Kerry. But they had no problem calling Pennsylvania for Kerry while every ballot only makes that one closer. They are holding off on Ohio, but that gap will only get wider. The direct link to the post is here <http://politicaltracker.com/blog/comments.php?id=168_0_1_0_C>.

Maybe the just don’t want to call a winner. That way more people watch for longer. Or they are just holding out hope for Kerry; or both.

Ryan Fletcher

tracker@politicaltracker.com <mailto:tracker@politicaltracker.com?subject=Bias as Reported on Logic Times>

<http://www.politicaltracker.com>

2: James Sweeney November 3, 2004 10:36am EST

This is an incredible, damning set of stats. It clearly, succinctly and finally drives the stake of truth through the media's cold, manipulative heart.

{Aslan: Amen.}

3: Jane McIntyre November 3, 2004 10:54am EST

But what can we do about it?.....I live and vote in PA and the radio stations this morning were all over this story………….nothing will happen!!!

{Aslan: But I think something is happening. The takedown of CBS by the blogosphere was a telling sign that the mainstream media is vulnerable and this debacle will make them more vulnerable, and people like you, who used to be bystanders, are now watchdogs. I bet Pennsylvania finishes at 50-50 with a very slight edge for Kerry by the time absentees are counted.

Consider the media dividend that we now realize (read Fear of Extinction <http://www.logictimes.com/extinction.htm>) and be hopeful!}

4: Jim Baker November 3, 2004 10:55am EST

I stayed up until 2 AM Mountain Time thinking that at least one of the gutless networks would call the election for Bush. Instead, they all got in a holding pattern and refused to call any state that would put up 270 or more fore Bush. It was the worst at FOX and NBC. Both had rightly called Ohio and then wouldn't call any of New Mexico, Iowa, or Nevada because the other networks had refused to call Ohio. I have come to expect this from the left of center media. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Michigan go in the Kerry column and Ohio is too close to call. Now we have the 'unifier' refusing to allow the 'polarizing' President an opportunity to pull the country together a little bit.

{Aslan: I, too, was very disappointed in Fox. Fox News had a unique opportunity to break away from the mainstream media complex and prove they were “fair and balanced,” and they quailed. The came to the edge of the precipice and, afraid of the consequences, they applied a different standard to Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada to avoid the responsibility of common sense. Sad.}

5: Mark T. Petro November 3, 2004 11:11am EST

Perhaps it is because NM & IA would be states that switched to Bush from Gore in 2000. This would show Bush doing better electorial-wise than he did in 2000, a media no-no.

{Aslan: Perhaps, but that did not stop them from calling New Hampshire – a Bush state – for Kerry. Oh, that is your point. Sorry!}

6: Margaret November 3, 2004 11:43am EST

Time for conservatives to band together to buy newspaper chains or form new ones -- ditto TV networks. Maybe the blogosphere can call for donations to a fund to do so. Maybe the Swifties can organize this.

{Aslan: Don’t you think that a proudly conservative network (not a closet one like Fox) would thrive? I agree with you there.}

7: René Lajous November 3, 2004 12:24pm EST

It’s worse than bias in the calls, there’s bias in the exit polls. ALL the exit polls were biased, and anyone with half a brain, and access to the exit poll detail info, could see it. I don’t have the specifics, only anecdote. The specifics we do have are that the networks were unable to call big Bush states (such as VA and SC, even MS) early because of exit poll data. The problem is that the exit poll data surely affects voters willingness to vote. The bias was so strong that at the Iowa Electronics Markets, Bush was given ~15% probability of winning in the early evening (~5pm PST).

{Aslan: I am in the dark here. I knew the exit polling was going bad and blocked it all out early, confident in looking at the county-by-county returns in Florida and Pennsylvania (where Philadelphia and Allegheny accounted for 90% of the early returns) that these polls were wrong.}

8: Stuart Cvrk November 3, 2004 01:03pm EST

I dream of the time when, while watching TV news or commentary shows, text appears for each talking head that points out the following:

The individual's past affiliation(s) with political campaigns/parties/congressional staffs.

The individual's voting recording in the 3 previous national elections (for president and senators).

The individual's record of the campaign contributions over the previous 3 election cycles.

It is long past time that these people need to be unmasked for the political partisans they are.

9: Larry Horacek November 3, 2004 01:08pm EST

Good observation. While the pundits will now focus on what Republicans and Democrats did right/wrong, we Americans had better make sure that the veracity and truthfulness of the press and major media is thoroughly vetted. It is an open secret that major media bias the news to either favor the Democrat/Liberal or denigrate the Republican/Conservative. If it were not for Fox News’ alternate view over the past few years, I believe that the election results last night could have been much different. We need to find a way to get the spotlight to shine back on the media. Please keep raising this critical issue!!

{Aslan: You are welcome. I think that with this defeat, the media will now lose it. As I stated in Fear of Extinction <http://www.logictimes.com/extinction.htm>: “Mary Mapes journalism will become the standard, not the exception, thus providing meat for the new watchdog media (internet, cable, radio).” With Rathergate, the bogus munitions hit job, and now the exit polling fiasco, they are revealing to the world their true nature. Four years of a GWB will only push them over the edge with you and me there watching and commenting.}

10: Randy Perry November 3, 2004 01:32pm EST

First, no question that people were afraid to call the election (including FOX). I kept web browsers open to all five main news networks, and none gave Bush more than 269 until the AP announcement of Kerry's concession call. I don't know what the networks did on TV, but CBS(!) was the first to post 274 EV for Bush. CNN still has 254 at this writing. Of course, with NBC and FOX giving Bush 269, they were really calling the election, just not too obviously. As far as the other states, I too noticed that the PA difference was less than that in OH (even in absolute votes). However, in the networks defense, it should be noted that in 2000 OH had 90% of its provisional ballots verified. PA had no experience with provisional ballots, and I still have not heard a count (but get the impression their are few). There seem to be similar issues in NM with absentee voters (CNN called NV during the night). Yes, historically, absentee voters tend to be conservative, but this year there was a big democratic push to vote early that could easily change that norm. I think we all need to realize that there is tension in all networks between keeping credibility and letting their biases show through. No one wanted to call it wrong, even if it might help their candidate.

On the other side, I have heard some extremely egregious stuff this morning. A democratic operative discussing exit polling that showed how "credulous, rather than informed" voters in the South are (creationist, Saddam did have massive amounts of WMD, Saddam had major links to Al Qaeda, and a few other points). Of course I did not hear about any surveys among Democratic voters about their misconceptions. I work in a research group with a pretty high degree of education, yet have repeated heard that Saddam had NO connection with terrorism (despite the committee report that also said no WMD's), Bush increased the tax burden on moderate voters (I believe Kerry said this numerous times and the post-debate fact-checkers kept pointing out it was in error--and these were not FOX fact-checkers), the media recount in FL in 2000 showed Gore won.....you get the point. This is the kind of bias I usually see, allowing the soapbox to people more on one side than the other, and not really challenging their assertions. FOX does it too.

{Aslan: Well said. The only point I would make about the possibility of new variables keeping Ohio in play is that they should then apply those same standards to all close races. If Ohio cannot be called because of these factors, so too they should have been unable to call New Hampshire, Wisconsin (some did not), Pennsylvania, even Michigan. The bottom line in a rational evaluation of statistics – which is compelling Kerry’s concession – is that even with provisional/absentee votes outstanding, one cannot expect large reversals in candidate support. In other words, if you have lost by 100,000 by a 51-48 margin, statistics tell you that you would need close to two million provisional/absentee ballots to have a shot at turning that around – and yet it is still far more likely the 51-48 will hold up (as it did in Florida recounts).}

11: Martha in Knoxville November 3, 2004 01:41pm EST

Thank you for putting the truth out there. And, has our buddy Dan Rather called it yet? He wasn't going to call Ohio until next year. Sore losers.

http://www.logictimes.com/pale.htm

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i'm not sure what all goes into calling a state, and the evidence presented certainly seems suspect, but i am done w/ the MSM even more so than i have ever been before.

the blatant bias conveyed in their coverage last night has done it for me. cnn was downright laughable in their coverage when it first appeared ohio was going for W.

susan estritch was hilarious last night, bless her heart...

i thought wolfe was going to blow an artery.

[jaydubb121 22]

Yeah, when Brit Hume called Estrich a "know-it-all" right to her face, I thought her head would explode. And it was also quite comical how much she mentioned Bush was going to have a very difficult time. I guess she meant a difficult time staying awake waiting on FoxNewsNetwork to sprout a pair of cojones and declare him the overall winner.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

Yeah, when Brit Hume called Estrich a "know-it-all" right to her face, I thought her head would explode. And it was also quite comical how much she mentioned Bush was going to have a very difficult time. I guess she meant a difficult time staying awake waiting on FoxNewsNetwork to sprout a pair of cojones and declare him the overall winner.

118013[/snapback]

i thought this was one of the highlights of the night as far as media coverage goes... could've been THE highlight, but for CNN's performance late in the night.

brit immediately tried to make it sound better than it actually did, and susan wouldn't have anything to do w/ it! LOL

and then, when she came back later on, she was STILL on the 'know-it-all' comment.

she & her 'sources' were just flat out wrong...yet her point, "either the exit polls are dead wrong, or bush loses" was spot on. exit polls were way off.

ct

[Aubie16 1]

I watched FoxNews for most of the night, (Not the one with Shep Smith, but the other one.)and I didn't think they did a bad job.)

But after Foxnews had called Ohio for Bush, and we seemed pretty assured of a Bush win, I changed it to CBS to watch Dan Rather react. THAT was by far the funniest thing of the night. You could just see the denial starting to form! He refused to talk about the possibility of Bush winning Ohio, it was great!

[CarolinaTiger 0]

I watched FoxNews for most of the night, (Not the one with Shep Smith, but the other one.)and I didn't think they did a bad job.)

But after Foxnews had called Ohio for Bush, and we seemed pretty assured of a Bush win, I changed it to CBS to watch Dan Rather react. THAT was by far the funniest thing of the night. You could just see the denial starting to form! He refused to talk about the possibility of Bush winning Ohio, it was great!

118022[/snapback]

i'm proud to say i watched only about 12 seconds of CBS. yet, i also admit to having turned over there solely for the purpose of how dan was holding up. it was so quiet & solemn over there, i decided i couldn't watch. so i went over to CNN, where the denial was sad to watch... who knew they were math geniuses!

[clantontiger 0]

I knew it was over for Kerry when I saw Estrich tells everyone that Ohio was a Kerry state. I knew she did not believe what she was saying. She was so animated in her explanation it was almost funny.

[CCTAU 3,350]

I stayed on Fox most of the night. I did however frequently change over to CNN. When the lady that calls the states on CNN had to tell everyone that Ohio was looking like it would go to Bush, I thought she was gonna cry. It sounded like a funereal speech. My wife and I almost rolled out of our seat laughing. But then we looked at each other and realized just how biased these people are.

[tombigbeetiger 223]

democrats have imploded......

[DKW 86 7,447]

After Fox, NBC, and MSNBC called Ohio for Bush, I too turned on CBS. It was worth the time. Rather was hilarious. He was just short of suicidal watching the obvious.

Watching folks deny the obvious is too funny.