The biggest loser in the recent election was...

[haggis]

The Main Stream Media

The biggest loser in this election is the Main Stream Media’s reputation for non-biased reporting, and rightly so.

For too long the unelected media has wielded more influence in America that any president or other elected representative could ever hope to. Now that influence is waning and my relief at that is greater than my relief that Bush won re-election.

I previously posted that I thought Bush would win by a 55% majority and it appears that when all is said and done, I’m going to miss that target by 3-4%

That missing margin is due in large part, I believe, to the shameful behavior of the MSM in their not-so-transparent support of Kerry over Bush.

Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of Newsweek magazine, famously observed that the media ”wants Kerry to win” and speculated that this support from the press would be worth fifteen points at election time. Thomas later backed off this and speculated that press support for Kerry might be worth a mere five points, but even that is enough to explain why there's still shouting going on, instead of the MSM honestly declaring a clear victory for Bush.

And make no mistake about it, it is a clear victory of more than 3.5 million votes nationwide currently and I believe that margin will grow possibly by another million.

Unconvinced? This is the first election since 1988 that a president won more than 50% of the popular votes. Clinton never got more than 49% and of course Gore beat Bush by 800,000 in 2000 to win the popular vote while losing the Electoral College vote.

If a win of the popular vote by 800K was enough to claim in 2000 that Bush was “selected not elected” what does a victory of 3.5 million voters mean?

The weakness of Bush as a candidate and the antipathy from the traditional US media made the result closer than they might have been.

I think Bush was saved by the vibrancy and diversity of the Internet, talk radio and cable news, but especially by the Internet.

With the advent of the Internet, news is becoming a commodity, available to anyone and with a much lower threshold to participate in the “news” business.

Anyone with a computer, a link to the Internet, and an opinion can get his/her point out in front of everyone. Even if that opinion is fiercely biased there is still a mechanism to fact check frothy mouth claims.

And that is where the Internet triumphs; it can equally check the claims of people in pajamas posting on the Internet as it can the big media.

Big media is no longer the gatekeeper of what we hear and what we see and I think the U.S. and the world is better off because of it.

And MSM’s, traditional influence continues to shrink

Two polls released last week found that more people perceive the media tilting coverage in favor of Kerry than Bush. Gallup determined that 35 percent think coverage has tilted toward Kerry compared to just 16 percent who said it favored Bush.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press discovered that "half of voters (50 percent) say most newspaper and TV reporters would prefer to see John Kerry win the election, compared with just 22 percent who think that most journalists are pulling for George Bush."

Couple with recent reports that newspaper subscriptions have been declining for years, (except the NYT, I guess frothy mouth liberalism still appeals to New Yorkers) I think it is clear that people are starting to realize that there are alternatives to “old media.”

In their rush to do or say anything to defeat Bush the MSM has, in my opinion, crippled itself forever. In that respect the MSM revealed it to be the same as those people who voted for Kerry mainly because they were ABB voters and didn’t really support Kerry.

Note: As I write this I hear that Nevada has been decided in Bush’s favor giving him 274 EC votes and that Sen. Kerry has conceded the race to Bush, good for him, I hope he’s as gracious as Gore was in 2000.

And yes, I will honor my bet to pay $50 (or was it $100? I’ll have to go back and check) to a charity because Bush did not exceed my 55% prediction. I will probably pick one of the on-going charities in Iraq, but I’m open to suggestions.

[mpreston]

Quoted from PNAC's statement of principles -- "We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

International order = new world order

Didn't Hitler promote the same thing?

OT - apparently it is what's wanted, the american public voted for "more of the same". Interesting how the Statement was printed in 1997 - and slowly but surely they're meeting their agenda.

[mpreston]

oops that was supposed to go in a different thread....where'd it go?

[shostakovich]

Hi Haggis. Good to have you back. It was $50. I, too, wish the media had done things differently. Instead of glomming onto the "news" like Rathergate, Bin Laden's tape, Iraq attacks, etc, that was spun mostly as Bush problems, I wish they had treated it simply as news. As for being down on Bush, it was KERRY's job to simply keep Bush's record (2000-03) on the front burner and extrapolate from that. Instead, he fed off the "news" and added to the "distraction" from Bush's record.
I thought that his record should be what the vote was about. If you like it, vote Bush. If not, vote Kerry. If that was actually what the vote reflects, I'm very disappointed in my country. But I believe the vote had more to do with the year's worth of phony baloney campaign ads and speeches. In that case I can just be disappointed in our collective gullibility, as opposed to believing we agree with George Bush's policies.
Sorely Saddened Shos

[RC]

Shos (particularly) & Haggis, nicely said.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

rikkitikki: Actually that there "International Order" sounds a lot like what the League of Nations, and the United Nations, were originally chartered to be.

What the heck. Maybe third time's the charm.

[RC]

All except for the unilateral part...


Hey, here's a joke to dilute the atmosphere a bit:

The new Homeland Security Bill has passed. Things will be different now.

Internet surfing will be tracked by the FBI with a non intrusive method.
The FBI says you will not notice anything different. Click below for a demonstration.
web page

[rwcrooks]

Shos,

The point was not only to evaluate Bush's record, but also to evaluate what Kerry has done and what he said he would do. Apparently more people wanted Bush's version of the future than Kerry's.

As for the Mainstream Media marginalizing themselves, it isn't helping that Dan Rather still has a job.

[Shapley]

rktkDC:

re:International order = new world order

would that be the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" that appears on the Great Seal of the United States of America approved by the U.S. Congress on June 20, 1782?

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon]

Back to Haggai's original point. Did you watch Dan Rather get apoplectic late last night? He looked like he was panicking over the returns tending towards a Bush victory. I thought I was going to witness a meltdown on national TV. He was throwing out inappropriate analogies and metaphors left and right. I was cringing so much I had to turn it to ABC. He should hand in his resignation.

BigJon

[Shapley]

BigJon,

RE:He should hand in his resignation

That would require integrity. I think he has demonstrated an incredible lack of it during this election season.

V/R
Shapley

[Nicole Marie]

Since we are calling for a Rather resignation... What about that F Word Network?

[dai bread]

I have lately read various comments saying, in effect, that an Electoral College is necessary to ensure that small states have their voices heard.

But according to red & blue maps that are published in my newspaper, the states have widely-differing numbers of votes in the Electoral College, depending on the number of congressmen they can elect, which in turn depends on population.

So, why not simply have direct voting? Have I missed something?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by dai bread:
... why not simply have direct voting? Have I missed something?

No simple answer will work here. Part of the reason for the electoral college is that 18th century travel times were longer for the same map distance. Sending representatives worked better than just sending vote tallies.

Another reason is that the various states are widely disparate in their populations. California, alone, has more inhabitants than much of the midwest combined - and also has a very different population and culture. Likewise New York, Texas, Florida, and so forth. This arcane "college" system provides the smaller states a greater weight per individual inhabitant and in part provides a counterbalance to the populations of the larger states.

But mostly, we keep the system because it doesn't seem broken. Been workin' out pretty good, so far. We're used to it.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by rktktDC:
oops that was supposed to go in a different thread....where'd it go?

That's a good question. I posted the topic, proofread it once it was up, then it vanished. I had to completely re-enter it. Just to confirm I wasn't hallucinating(much to Haggis & Shap's chagrin, I'm sure ), when I entered the topic title the second time, my o/s remembered what I had typed previously.

Very strange.

[analog]

Dai

What Selma said.

The number of electoral votes for each state is their number of representatives(based on population) PLUS their number of senators(always 2 regardless of population). That extra 2 gives small states a slightly heavier share of the electors.

Here's an interesting trivium- if the electoral college is a tie, the house of representatives picks the president but there's only one vote cast per state. That would REALLY empower the small states.

<small>[ 11-03-2004, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: analog ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

Why don't electoral votes reflect the proportionality of the popular vote in a given state? The small states could still have their two extra votes, and the electoral vote would still be more in line with the popular vote. (Funny - I just read an article in the Carter Center's website that lists this very concept as a method of reforming the EC......or is it just a bunch a liberal frothy-mouthing?)

And yes, I realize Bush would still have won had that been the case - just still questioning the fairness of the current system.

<small>[ 11-04-2004, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[analog]

It's up to the individual state legislatures to say how their electoral votes get allocated.

Except for Maine and Nebraska, the winner takes all. I dont know why. Probably some nefarious reason!

Independent electors generally reflecting the popular vote makes more sense to me as well.

[RC]

re:International order = new world order

would that be the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" that appears on the Great Seal of the United States of America approved by the U.S. Congress on June 20, 1782?

Shap. No. It is quite different which is why many in the world find it so threatening.

[rwcrooks]

The Electoral College is what makes the US a Republic rather than a Democracy.