Different Reporters, Different Spins
The New York Times led its Monday front page story: “A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.”
But the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Associated Press all delivered spins which gave equal or greater emphasis to how Gore really won the Florida vote. “Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush,” read the Washington Post headline. The subhead, however, argued: “But Study Finds Gore Might Have Won Statewide Tally of All Uncounted Ballots.”
The Los Angeles Times subhead put hope ahead of reality as the newspaper emphasized: “An exhaustive ballot review indicates more people tried to vote for Gore, and he might have won had pending reforms been in effect.”
Below are excerpts from the beginnings of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and AP stories on November 12 about the re-count. Since all four outlets were part of the consortium and, therefore, had full access to all of the same data, it's an illuminating example of how different reporters can convey contrasting meanings to the same set of facts.
To Get the Full Story …
The consortium of news organizations sponsoring the NORC Florida ballot project conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post Co., Tribune Publishing, CNN, Associated Press, St. Petersburg Times and The Palm Beach Post.” The AP noted: “The New York Times owns The Boston Globe, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and the Lakeland Ledger among others. Washington Post Co. owns The Washington Post and Newsweek. Tribune, based in Chicago, owns the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel, and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, among others.”
For a full rundown of the findings, go here.
(This update courtesy of the Media Research Center.)
Excerpts from the Stories
The November 12 New York Times story headlined: “Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.” Reporters Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder led:
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. …
For the story in full, go here.
The Washington Post story headlined: “Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush.” Subhead: “But Study Finds Gore Might Have Won Statewide Tally of All Uncounted Ballots.” Reporters Dan Keating and Dan Balz began their front page piece:
In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts – one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court — had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.
But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.
The study showed that if the two limited recounts had not been short-circuited — the first by Florida county and state election officials and the second by the U.S. Supreme Court — Bush would have held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard. But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or a more restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.…
For the entire story, go here.
The Los Angeles Times story headlined: “Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds.” The subhead, “Project: An exhaustive ballot review indicates more people tried to vote for Gore, and he might have won had pending reforms been in effect.” Reporters Doyle Mcmanus, Bob Drogin and Richard O'Reilly opened their front page report from Washington, DC:
If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida's courts to finish their abortive recount of last year's deadlocked presidential election, President Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive study of the uncounted ballots has found.
But if the recount had been held under new vote-counting rules that Florida and other states now are adopting — rules aimed at recording the intentions of as many voters as possible — Democratic candidate Al Gore probably would have won, although by an even thinner margin, the study found.
The study provides evidence that more Florida voters attempted to vote for Gore than for Bush — but so many Gore voters marked their ballots improperly that Bush received more valid votes.…
For the rest of the story, go here.
“Florida Review Shows Narrowest Margin,” announced the Associated Press headline over a dispatch by Robert Tanner and Sharon L. Crenson. They began:
A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome — by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.
Bush eventually won Florida, and thus the White House, by 537 votes out of more than 6 million cast. But questions about the uncounted votes lingered.
Almost a year after that cliffhanger conclusion, a media-sponsored review of the more than 175,000 disputed ballots underscored that the prize of the U.S. presidency came down to an almost unimaginably small number of votes.
The new data, compiled by The Associated Press and seven other news organizations, also suggested that Gore followed a legal strategy after Election Day that would have led to defeat even if it had not been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Gore sought a recount of a relatively small portion of the state's disputed ballots while the review indicates his only chance lay in a course he advocated publicly but did not pursue in court — a full statewide recount of all Florida's untallied votes….
For the AP story in full, go here.