Media suppress the news that Bush lost election to Gore

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | October 22, 2001 | Charles Laurence

[John Jorsett]

The most detailed analysis yet of the contested Florida votes from last year's presidential election - with the potential to question President George Bush's legitimacy - is being withheld by the news organisations that commissioned it.

Results of the inspection of more than 170,000 votes rejected as unreadable in the "hanging chad" chaos of last November's vote count were ready at the end of August.

The study was commissioned early this year by a consortium including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The New York Times and the broadcaster CNN. The cost was more than $A2million.

Now, however, spokesmen for the consortium say that they decided to postpone the story of the analysis by the National Opinion Research Centre at the University of Chicago for lack of resources and lack of interest in the face of the enormous story after the September11 attacks.

Newspapers were saying last week that the final phase of the analysis, counting the 170,000 votes, had been postponed.

"Our belief is that the priorities of the country have changed, and our priorities have changed," said Steven Goldstein, vice-president of corporate communications at Dow Jones, owner of The Wall Street Journal.

Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times, said: "The consortium agreed that because of the war, because of our lack of resources, we were postponing the vote-count investigation. But this is not final. The intention is to go forward."

However David Podvin, an investigative journalist who runs an independent Web page, Make Them Accountable, said he had been tipped off that the consortium was covering up the results.

He refused to disclose his source other than to describe him as a former media executive whom he knew "as an accurate conduit of information" and who claimed that the consortium "is deliberately hiding the results of its recount because [former Democrat vice-president Al] Gore was the indisputable winner".

He also claims that a New York Times journalist involved in the recount project had told "a former companion" that the Gore victory margin was big enough to create "major trouble for the Bush presidency if this ever gets out".

"The goosiness, the sensitivity, that the press which organised this analysis is now showing to publishing the results and the persistence of questions about the Florida ballots raise questions," said Dr John Mason, a professor of political science at William Paterson University, in New Jersey.

"There is a sensitivity over the legitimacy of this president."

National Opinion Research Centre staff have been puzzled by the idea that the media would lack the resources because, they said, they had computer programs already designed and fitted for the final count.

[summer]

Oh, sorry! :)

[chantal7]

Newspapers were saying last week that the final phase of the analysis, counting the 170,000 votes, had been postponed.

They haven't even counted them, their final phase of this analysis but they can say that gore won by a wide margin?

The votes were illegal and/or have been changed since the election and the previous multiple recounts.

These people serve no purpose but to intentionally cause harm to our legal and legitimate President.

Let's send these nuts to afghanistan.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Oh, sorry! :)"

sorry you got caught in my rant

[summer]

No problem. It's not the worst that has happened to me! :)

[Sueann]

This isn't just water under the bridge - this is GARBAGE!! In the first place, what they are counting is the over-votes, under votes, etc. These are ILLEGAL votes - and they don't count!!! H e l l o!!! If the media wants to count them, let them - THEY DON'T COUNT!!!!!!!! The media is still so upset because their cheating didn't win the election - they are CONTINUING TO CHEAT - give me a break!!

[Graewoulf]

Loose chads reveal ABSTAIN votes: 1. voters who changed their minds while voting, or 2. patriots, who for the first time in their lives refused to vote for a democrat for President.

[sweetliberty]

Since when did choosing a president fall to the media anyhow? They are legends in their own minds!

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

It took Carnac 8 months to hold the ballots up to his head and say, "what is a Gore vote?". The answer was "An idiot tried to vote but couldn't punch the card correctly".

[dalebert]

still counting spoiled ballots. don't they know what spoiled means. I have a feeling they spoiled more Bush votes than Gores in a very selective process. There must be a way to expose these creeps.

[dalebert]

still counting spoiled ballots. don't they know what spoiled means. I have a feeling they spoiled more Bush votes than Gores in a very selective process. There must be a way to expose these creeps.

[No Fool]

Results of the inspection of more than 170,000 votes rejected as unreadable in the "hanging chad" chaos of last November's vote count were ready at the end of August.

These people continue to conveniently forget that these are BALLOTS, not votes. Had the chad actually been punched out correctly, it would have been a legal vote. By law, they don't count. Hand count all you want, let the chads fall where they may (or be pulled off as you so choose) but it wont change the fact that they are not votes...they are ballots. And W WON, and won, and won....

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"It's not the worst that has happened to me"

always be prepared!
asbestos and tin foil, LOL

[Firebeer]

"Wanta bet if there were an election tomorrow the margin by which Pres. Bush would whip both al gore and Bill Clinton. These people are so irrelevant, they are blowing in the wind."

Ping!

Like the way you think, babe.

[nopardons]

What this author is doing, is using the Urban Legend methodology, to support his own prefference. You know the trick, " a friend of a close personal friend, whose Aunt works for the man who... ", and the other old, reliable, " Someone who REALLY knows, told the dog groomer's grandfather's mistress , who told my mailman...". Beides, so many of the discounted ballots, which were later counted, were doctored in the counting . No one, after all of the manhandling, could be certain how to count the votes by now.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Since when did choosing a president fall to the media anyhow?"

[nopardons]

I think that it also means that NIXON WON , in '60, that is.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

No, the media is covering up evidence they discovered of massive Democrat election fraud.

[Timesink]

I'd like to point out to everyone that I posted this same story here earlier today, and in that post I also showed how the Sydney Morning Herald intentionally deleted key paragraphs of the original story from the UK Telegraph in order to falsely make the story appear to be conclusive proof of Gore's "victory" when in fact it was no such thing.

They rewrote the article to make it lie! The ultimate in liberal media bias!