Posted on 11/01/2004 6:10:37 AM PST by OESY
...[T]he TV networks... say they have revamped the way they collect and analyze polling data, using more sophisticated equipment and better communications. To tone down their competitive instincts in "calling" states for either candidate, some are blocking their news desks from watching rivals' shows. All the networks are also striving to get their respective "decision desks" -- the units that make the calls -- to work more closely with the producers and reporters....
CBS News said the computers VNS used weren't sophisticated enough to compare voting data with historical information and were incapable of raising red flags where they were needed....
Of course, part of the problem is that exit-poll data can be unreliable or overinterpreted, especially in a close race. News organizations, though, can't resist the urge to get an early read on a race....
Now Mr. Mitofsky, a veteran pollster, is back and working for National Election Pool, a new consortium....
The two main tasks of the old VNS -- collecting actual election results and conducting exit polls -- have now been separated. Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International are conducting exit polls and collecting returns from sample precincts -- early indicators that give media organizations an idea of which way a particular state or city is headed. The Associated Press is separately responsible for reporting vote counts as they are tallied at county election sites.
...Edison and Mitofsky interviewers will speak to voters as they leave about 1,500 precincts, asking them whom they voted for and why. The "why" part will be analyzed later, but the "whos" will be tallied and shipped out to give news organizations a first look at where the race is headed....
It has set up a toll-free hotline for voters to phone with any problems or irregularities they observe.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I don't think I've heard a funnier oxymoron than "Network accuracy."
They weren't stung by miscalls, but instead by their failure to influence the election enough to bring a Gore win. Calling Florida for Gore while (1) Bush was ahead and (2) the polls in the panhandle were still open took chutzpah.
This article is so much flaggelation at best it's not worth reading. ALl they have done is rearrange deck chairs. Come Wed morning there'll be more recount suits filed than you can count.
Not to mention that in the only "missed call" of the 2000 election, they made their call before the polls were closed in one part of the state -- a traditionally strong conservative republican part of the state. And they also forgot to mention that in all the counting and reporting of returns, Bush LED THE WHOLE TIME. He never trailed, yet in spite of the fact that he had a significant lead the network idiots called it for algore.
Durdge says he will report exit polling information all day long, assuming he gets any leaked to him.
Actually I think they missed New Mexico, too. They called it for Gore and then had to retract the call.
HA! My recollection of Florida was:
Exit polls predicted Bush
Early counts predicted Bush
Bush led at all times throughout the night
Then the networks call the state for Gore.
You don't often see the word "gird" in a newspaper headline. Gird up your loins ?
My favorite was watching the ignorant stuffed shirts call a state for Gore while the banner ticker below was showing Bush up by 3-5% in that State.
Absolutely, and they won't be subtle about it. The entire Democrat media is all about Kerry winning, and nothing else. They'll report Kerry victories in PA, NJ, OH, FL by 8:01pm, hoping to sway the votes in the states with polls still open. If they're wrong, "oh well! We have egg on our faces. Don't we feel bad." End justifies the means.
Another reason to be glad I suspended my subscription to the WSJ.
The radical left-wing media b@$t@rd$ will do the same thing they've been doing for a long time -- use exit polling data to call East & Midwest states for Kerry, while not calling Bush states. Their hope is to demoralize Bush voters in the Heartland and the West, thus discouraging them from even going to the polls. Watch and see.
"We didn't change anything at all. We just want potential voters to BELIEVE we have more accurate polling equipment, so they will BELIEVE us when we tell them who we want to win for PRESIDENT."
Darn. Should have read other replies first.
AT LEAST WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME WAVELENGTH.
The true meaning of the article - the networks are going to need DNA evidence before they say Bush has 270 Electoral Votes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.