Skip to comments.N.Y. Times: Wrong, Late, Upset Over Election Results
Posted on 11/04/2004 7:50:16 PM PST by wagglebee
It is probably no surprise that the New York Times is less than pleased with the results of the 2004 election.
The newspaper, and its sister the Boston Globe, both publicly endorsed John Kerry.
But what was more unusual was the way the newspaper conducted itself on Election Day and on Nov. 3.
During Election Day, the Times, as well as many other news organizations, conducted exit polling. Those polls query voters as to their choices when they leave polling stations.
As is well known today, the ad-hoc exit polls turned out to be wrong.
What is not as well known is that some news organizations began releasing "results" of those polls while voting was under way in most sections of the nation.
A veteran New York Times U.N. correspondent of 30 years conveniently "informed" several news organizations with offices at U.N. headquarters that Times polling showed Kerry would win the 2004 election.
He repeated the Times "prediction" several times throughout Election Day, though official paper policy was not to disclose such results till after polls closed.
The correspondent was silent on Nov. 3, and is now "gone" for a few days.
To add to the questions of the Times' election coverage ...
When John Kerry conceded the election late Wednesday morning, the Times ignored the story.
Other New York newspapers ran special editions. The Times let its edition from 6 a.m. local time remain as its final edition for the day.
That edition had the headline "Bush Holds Lead - Kerry Refuses to Concede Tight Race."
Times readers were forced to wait almost 19 hours to be informed that John Kerry had conceded.
This from the newspaper that prides itself as the "newspaper of record."
The Slimes still thinks Bubba Clintoon (the first black prez) is in the Oral office.
All the news that's fiction to print.
NewsMax should I.D. the "correspondent" who perpetrated the leaks. These SOBs tried to steal the election and need to be held accountable.
I don't think we have to make this out as a liberal conspiracy this time around. We all know polls can be wrong, and they are often used to allow news organizations to call states earlier than pure waiting for the 'official' count. These early exit poles allowed many of the red states to be caller earlier in the evening, slidifying Bush'd electoral lead early on.
Some states in particular did have exit poles showing a higher percentage for Kerry than actual results, but there could be a number of explainations for that
NY Times looks into relocating to Toronto.
The New York Times Boys like "it" that way!
The old gray lady is nothin but a whore!!!
"These SOBs tried to steal the election and need to be held accountable..."
Yes, they are highly complicit and criminal in what they and the rest of the MSM have done. I have not bought a NYT for over 4 years now and never will again. I hope the rest of the non-Communist U.S. will do the same.
There is a gaping opportunity for a comprehensive, fair, balance newpaper in the United States...The New Left Pravda will die a certain death along with their socialist cartel.
EEEEEWWW!! I was just getting ready to brush and say "Au Revoir" like my junior LOOOOZER Senator!!
Are you really that clueless? What you just spouted is total BS.
The Old Gray Lady is just another senile old coot.
This just in...the New York Times has just called Texas for Dubya!
I guess I'm just not a fan of conspiracies. I'd like to believe that news organizations are NOT trying to manipulate the population. Certainly there is a liberal bias, but I also believe that free thinkers like us can spot it as it happens.
NYT Page 12 March, 2005.....W takes IA
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.