NY Times, what happened to the election?

[roenyc]

WITH the exception of a few Democratic outliers in Ohio, few people dispute that the election for president is done and decided: President Bush won and John Kerry lost.

But as the new year begins, no such consensus exists among Democrats about why Mr. Kerry was defeated, and the party is locked in a battle of interpretation over just what went wrong. Was it values? Terrorism and Iraq? A better Republican get-out-the-vote operation or a rush of Hispanics to President Bush? A gawky candidate with little to say?{/i]


This is the gist of the article. it goes on to talk about democrats who think its the values who think its something else. the only Dem who makes sense is Nancy Pelosi. but the word fraud or discrimination does not come up once. i am not thrilled with this article.

[Brundle_Fly]

1. link?

[TexasProgresive]

2. link-

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/weekinreview/02nago.html?oref=login

[roenyc]

3. I'm sorry

i just came back to post it!!!

[Brundle_Fly]

4. it's cool

:pals:

[roenyc]

8. thank you

:toast:

[flpoljunkie]

16. If you care to respond to Mr. Nagourney..

his email address is apparently [e-mail]

[EFerrari]

5. What Cr@P! The NYT Public Editor's office just had to send out

a MASS emailing last week because so many of us are disputing the election results.

The email said the mailing was to 700 people! And I can only wonder how many readers they ignored before they paid attention.

Bulleria.

[EFerrari]

6. And here it is.:

In the first few weeks after the election several readers wrote us about this issue. Mr. Okrent responded to these concerns on his web journal. I include the entry below (see post #35).

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/danielokrent/index.html?offset=36&fid=.f555e99/36

dokrent - 5:40 PM ET November 21, 2004 (#35 of 40)

The Times and Covering Allegations of Election Fraud

Sorry to have been neglecting this spot for so long; I could give you a list of excuses, but none of them
is especially good.

Now, though, my mailbox has begun to overflow with criticisms of The Times for not looking more deeply
into allegations of large-scale vote fraud in Ohio and Florida, a story (if true) that no one can ignore. In some
of these messages, writers say that "now that the theft of the election has been proven ...," The Times must
reveal this to the wider world.

Were the assertion even nearly so, I would do more than recommend that The Times reveal it ­ I’d be
demanding it publicly, loudly and frequently. But the evidence I have seen to date proves nothing, other than
that there was a certain amount of error in certain counties, and an aggressive effort by some partisans in
some areas to challenge some likely Democratic voters. To my knowledge, no one in the Kerry campaign’s
vast on-the-ground operation, or in its armies of well-situated lawyers, has made the argument that what
happened in Ohio (or Florida) could have changed the result of the election. Similar views were explained
in "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread By Blogs, Are Quickly Buried," by Tom Zeller (Nov. 12).

And more, I expect, will be explored and explained in future articles if meaningful allegations can indeed
be established as facts. Both Matthew Purdy, the head of The Times’s investigative unit, and Rick Berke, the
paper’s Washington editor, assure me that reporters will continue to look into the issue. I’m confident that if
they find something, they’ll publish it. A good investigative reporter (much less a whole staff of them) turning
away from a story like this one ­ if true ­ would be like a flower turning away from the sun. Careers are made
by stories that detail massive election fraud.

But: the operative words here are if true. Wishing doesn’t make it so. Although it would probably pain him to
have someone from The Times touting his work, David Corn of The Nation, in a recent column, offers plenty
of reason to examine the allegations before I, or anyone else, should leap to give them credence. You can
find Corn’s column here.

Since then, over seven hundred other readers have raised similar concerns requesting more coverage on this issue. You may be interested in the following articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/politics/22poll.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/politics/15ohio.html

I raised reader concerns with Mr. Okrent and a few days ago he asked me to let you know that he does not believe The Times's coverage of the voting in Ohio is over.

The following articles have since appeared:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/politics/29ohio.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.html

Mr. Okrent wanted me to write you back asking that you please stay tuned.

Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

[EuroObserver]

7. This week's "The Economist"

makes interesting reading http://economist.com/printedition/ .

This article is free to read on their web: "Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend: Whatever happened to the belief that any American could get to the top?" - http://economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3518560 - the rest you have to pay for.

>>A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.<<

See esp. the articles on the Supreme Court and politicized Judges.

To someone who reads The Economist regularly (and is aware of their traditions and ideology) this edition represents a certain change of subtext, of tone. It seems clear to me that they are watching, THEY KNOW WE KNOW, and will be positioning themselves in order to go with the flow.

PS. Don't miss the article: "American army tactics in Iraq" - http://economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3524840

[Wilms]

9. Roe, this is great!!! Look!!!

"I raised reader concerns with Mr. Okrent and a few days ago he asked me to let you know that he does not believe The Times's coverage of the voting in Ohio is over."

It's not the future, yet. It's still the present. :bounce:

[EFerrari]

10. They're willfully ignoring Conyers while claiming objectivity

And I've read that David Corn piece in The Nation. It's obvious Corn didn't look at the videos of the public testimony in OH, didn't review the Conyers' material, didn't do much of anything to really get a grasp of the magnitude of 11/2 in Ohio (let alone anywhere else).

Even if you attribute only stupidity to both Corn and to the NYT, it's still blatant, unconcerned racism.

[Wilms]

11. Still the present....

I hear, ya, though. But I'm crossing my fingers that "all in due time".

[EFerrari]

12. That's right. Truth will out. And now, I've one more piece of

rotten fruit to toss back to Okrent.

It amazes me how disrespectful to the efforts of people like Conyers these hacks are. What an education this has been!

[Wilms]

13. For me, just another shitty reminder. n/t

[EFerrari]

14. These people aren't as smart as they think they are. And they

can't turn back the clock as they're trying to do. It'll be a rough ride but eventually, they'll all go to jail.

And the NYT will have to issue another one of their phony apologies as they watch their readership shrink because we're all reading the net.

That's my prediction for 2005 :)

[Wilms]

15. The MSM might as well just cover entertainment.

We get our own news. Fuck them.

[lonestarnot]

17. I am really sick of this fucking game! It's like don't spill any beans

until after the coronation. They don't want civil "unrest"? Money the motivation? Power? WTF?