Corrections: In Which The New York Times Perpetuates the Myth It Created -– That Bush Won Florida 00

[Echo In Light]

Corrections: In Which The New York Times Perpetuates the Myth It Created -– That George Bush Won Florida in 2000 by Larry Beinhart

“In 2001 painstaking postmortems of the Florida count, one by The New York Times and another by a consortium of newspapers, concluded that Mr. Bush would have come out slightly ahead, even if all the votes counted throughout the state had been retallied.”
–Alessandra Stanley, New York Times, May 23, 2008 in a review of the HBO television movie, Recount

That’s not true.

The New York Times did not do its own recount. It did participate in a consortium. Here’s what they actually said:

“If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.”
–Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder New York Times, November 12, 2001

Why did Ms. Stanley make such an important and fundamental error?

It is not a trivial matter. It is a common piece of misinformation. Many, many people believe it. Now a few more do, as a result of Ms. Stanley’s review.

It is not a trivial matter. Because that misinformation was created by one of the most bizarre, and still completely unexplained, journalistic events in modern times.

Here’s what happened.

George Bush appeared to have won Florida, and therefore the presidency.

The law in Florida was actually quite simple and direct:

ƒ(4) If the returns for any office reflect that a candidate was defeated or eliminated by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, … the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a recount of the votes cast with respect to such office or measure.

That is one of the simplest and most clearly written bits of legislation I’ve ever seen anywhere.

The Florida court thought so too and ordered a recount.

Then the United States Supreme Court stepped in and shut the recounts down.

Bush was left as the victor and became the president.

But, presumably, the whole world wanted to know who actually did get the most votes. It would make a great and important story. But getting the truth was too time consuming and expensive for any single news organization, so a consortium was formed. It consisted of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post and CNN.

It took almost a year and cost over a million dollars.

All the news organizations had the same information: Al Gore got more legal, countable votes than George Bush. Here are the headlines:

The New York Times: “Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.”

The Wall Street Journal: “In Election Review, Bush Wins Without Supreme Court Help,”

Los Angeles Times: “Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds.”

The Washington Post: “Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush”

CNN.com: “Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins.”

The St. Petersburg Times: “Recount: Bush.”

If you were still interested after the headlines, and bothered to read the stories, it didn’t get much better.

I read it in the New York Times. Frankly, I missed the key paragraph, until I saw it pointed out in an article by Gore Vidal.

I subsequently went back and read all the stories.

The Times was the worst in terms of active misdirection.

They spent the first three paragraphs supporting the headline, and they explicitly stated that Bush would have won even with a statewide recount.

Finally, in the fourth paragraph — if you got that far — was the statement quoted above:

“If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.”

There it was. A very simple statement. Al Gore got more votes in Florida than George Bush.

It is also very well buried.

Continued:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/27/9223/

[annabanana]

1. Why won't they stop lying? They just keep it up.

Does this go back to the original mockingbirds or what?

[Echo In Light]

2. Deny, deny, deny. The M$M is wholly complicit in enabling Bushco, so never expect anything else

[TheWatcher]

3. They don't stop lying becuase they can get away with it with impunity

The Bush cabal continues to do anything it wants, because they know they can.

And they are going to walk away Scott Free in 2009.

And unfortunately this country, from the top of our leadership down to the most average, everyday Citizen is going to LET THEM.

And that's not even the scary part.

In about 8 years, they will be back to finish the job.

If of course, they don't decide to do it NOW.

[Benhurst]

4. "Why did Ms. Stanley make such an important and fundamental error?"

Because plans are being laid to steal the 2008 election.

[Echo In Light]

5. I'm listening to Mark Crispin Miller discuss this now

[Echo In Light]

6. Bump