From the Associated Press--
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... g_problems
Excerpt: "Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites)'s 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush's total should have been recorded as 365...Sean Greene, research director with the nonpartisan Election Reform Information Project, said that while the glitch appeared minor "that could change if more of these stories start coming out."
Deja Vu all over again?
Bush wins Ohio votes by machine error
Moderator: Gillespie
-
J. McBain
media
Robert
I ran across this in my travels today. What do you think?
On Media and the Election
By Robert W. McChesney
Perhaps the most important function our media serves is to provide voters with the information they need to make sound decisions in the voting booth. If people don't know what they're voting for, our democracy is in serious trouble.
Unfortunately, it appears that we're in serious trouble.
This election was marked by a staggering amount of voter ignorance. Polls show that voters -- especially Bush supporters -- were grossly misinformed about their candidate's position on a broad range of issues. Surveying supporters of the President, a University of Maryland PIPA/ Knowledge Networks poll found:
72% still believe that there were WMD's in Iraq.
75% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support for Al Qaeda.
66% believe that Bush supports participation in the International Criminal Court.
72% believe that he supports the treaty banning land mines.
The catch? None of these statements are true.
How do we know who our candidates are and what they stand for when the media fixates on polls, controversy and spin instead of the issues? How do we have meaningful elections when people don't know what they're voting for? Our Founders understood this; that is why they inscribed freedom of the press into the First Amendment of the constitution.
Our media are responsible for giving us a balanced inspection of all claims, careful fact checking, and reasoned analysis. But that was all but abandoned in this presidential campaign. And it is exactly what we would expect. As a result of media consolidation and pressures to cut costs, media corporations have gutted investigative journalism and hard-hitting analysis. Hence we get hours and hours of coverage of the baseless and idiotic 'swift boats for truth' story, and barely a look at what the actual policies of this administration are, and how they affect the people of the nation and the world.
The complicity of our major media in subverting public discourse runs even deeper. The handful of enormous media corporations that own most of our major local TV stations and networks raked in $600 million from presidential TV ads alone, shattering previous records and subjecting voters to half-truths and distortions from both sides. Political ad revenues now constitute well over 10 percent of commercial broadcasting revenue, up from less than three percent in 1992. Overall, federal elections cost nearly $4 billion this year, representing a near 30% increase since 2000.
An iron law in commercial broadcasting is you do not do programming that undermines the credibility of your sponsors. The result: more political ads and little-to-no critical journalism that exposes the spin and lies in these TV ads. A more brash insult to our intelligence can hardly be imagined. This also explains why the corporate media giants are as enthusiastic about campaign finance reform as the NRA is regarding gun control.
Lastly, media companies have a conflict of interest; they benefit from seeing the re-election of George W. Bush and his industry-friendly policies. Viacom owner Sumner Redstone made it clear when his CBS was enmeshed in 'Rathergate' that he was a supporter of the president -- because the president would allow Viacom to get much larger and face less competition.
I ran across this in my travels today. What do you think?
On Media and the Election
By Robert W. McChesney
Perhaps the most important function our media serves is to provide voters with the information they need to make sound decisions in the voting booth. If people don't know what they're voting for, our democracy is in serious trouble.
Unfortunately, it appears that we're in serious trouble.
This election was marked by a staggering amount of voter ignorance. Polls show that voters -- especially Bush supporters -- were grossly misinformed about their candidate's position on a broad range of issues. Surveying supporters of the President, a University of Maryland PIPA/ Knowledge Networks poll found:
72% still believe that there were WMD's in Iraq.
75% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support for Al Qaeda.
66% believe that Bush supports participation in the International Criminal Court.
72% believe that he supports the treaty banning land mines.
The catch? None of these statements are true.
How do we know who our candidates are and what they stand for when the media fixates on polls, controversy and spin instead of the issues? How do we have meaningful elections when people don't know what they're voting for? Our Founders understood this; that is why they inscribed freedom of the press into the First Amendment of the constitution.
Our media are responsible for giving us a balanced inspection of all claims, careful fact checking, and reasoned analysis. But that was all but abandoned in this presidential campaign. And it is exactly what we would expect. As a result of media consolidation and pressures to cut costs, media corporations have gutted investigative journalism and hard-hitting analysis. Hence we get hours and hours of coverage of the baseless and idiotic 'swift boats for truth' story, and barely a look at what the actual policies of this administration are, and how they affect the people of the nation and the world.
The complicity of our major media in subverting public discourse runs even deeper. The handful of enormous media corporations that own most of our major local TV stations and networks raked in $600 million from presidential TV ads alone, shattering previous records and subjecting voters to half-truths and distortions from both sides. Political ad revenues now constitute well over 10 percent of commercial broadcasting revenue, up from less than three percent in 1992. Overall, federal elections cost nearly $4 billion this year, representing a near 30% increase since 2000.
An iron law in commercial broadcasting is you do not do programming that undermines the credibility of your sponsors. The result: more political ads and little-to-no critical journalism that exposes the spin and lies in these TV ads. A more brash insult to our intelligence can hardly be imagined. This also explains why the corporate media giants are as enthusiastic about campaign finance reform as the NRA is regarding gun control.
Lastly, media companies have a conflict of interest; they benefit from seeing the re-election of George W. Bush and his industry-friendly policies. Viacom owner Sumner Redstone made it clear when his CBS was enmeshed in 'Rathergate' that he was a supporter of the president -- because the president would allow Viacom to get much larger and face less competition.
-
Robert
Addendum
And for more on the subject of Ohio's voting irregularities, read this analysis:
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=393&row=0
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=393&row=0
-
Rich
-
Rory Connaghan
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 7:58 pm
- Location: B.I.
Another moaner here
Surveying supporters of the President, a University of Maryland PIPA/ Knowledge Networks poll found:
72% still believe that there were WMD's in Iraq.
75% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support for Al Qaeda.
66% believe that Bush supports participation in the International Criminal Court.
72% believe that he supports the treaty banning land mines.
The catch? None of these statements are true.
I gotta say this really disturbs me. It reminds me of a quote from some bureaucrat defending our intelligence community. "It's not that they're ignorant, it's that they know things that are'nt true."
72% still believe that there were WMD's in Iraq.
75% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support for Al Qaeda.
66% believe that Bush supports participation in the International Criminal Court.
72% believe that he supports the treaty banning land mines.
The catch? None of these statements are true.
I gotta say this really disturbs me. It reminds me of a quote from some bureaucrat defending our intelligence community. "It's not that they're ignorant, it's that they know things that are'nt true."
the censorship bug
Hi Roy, Looks like the censorship bug is at it again. I didn't know that being concerned about the state of this country and posting what you and Robert did would be considered moaning.
I wonder if Rich heard what our Michigan Governor Granholm said at the Democratic convention when she announced that over 300,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in Michigan. That count didn't include all the other jobs that were lost in our state.
I wonder how Rich and others like him would like to have their jobs out-sourced like the manufacturing jobs were in Michigan and other places.
My husband and I have sat many nights looking out our living room window seeing trucks from the General Motors plant in Lansing hauling truck after truck loads of car parts out of town to New Mexico. According to the plants foreman who my husband knew very well said he was being laid off for good and his job along with truck loads of car parts were being taken to New Mexico. He also said there were only going to be alitlte over 900 workers left at the main plant in Lansing.
I guess when you're a realtor and you own the Beacon you don't have to worry about loosing your job or becoming homeless.I hope Rich never has to experience that.
Keep right on doing what you're doing and tell people like Rich to get a life.
Cherie Eck-Tebo
Michigander
I wonder if Rich heard what our Michigan Governor Granholm said at the Democratic convention when she announced that over 300,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in Michigan. That count didn't include all the other jobs that were lost in our state.
I wonder how Rich and others like him would like to have their jobs out-sourced like the manufacturing jobs were in Michigan and other places.
My husband and I have sat many nights looking out our living room window seeing trucks from the General Motors plant in Lansing hauling truck after truck loads of car parts out of town to New Mexico. According to the plants foreman who my husband knew very well said he was being laid off for good and his job along with truck loads of car parts were being taken to New Mexico. He also said there were only going to be alitlte over 900 workers left at the main plant in Lansing.
I guess when you're a realtor and you own the Beacon you don't have to worry about loosing your job or becoming homeless.I hope Rich never has to experience that.
Keep right on doing what you're doing and tell people like Rich to get a life.
Cherie Eck-Tebo
Michigander
Hi Cherie,
Just a couple of notes for the record: Rich does not own the Beacon, and I have never censured you. Rich and I together moderate the forum here because he had the idea for a Beaver Island forum and the Beacon had a pre-existing forum which didn't have much activity so we simply combined the two.
Personally, every time I call Dell and talk to someone in India, while I realize it's good for India, I do worry about outsourcing our country's jobs and the effect on our job market in the next decade. This is my personal opinion, as was Rich's above. As far as censorship, I'm not aware of any here... please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm assuming when you replied to "Roy" you meant Rory.)
While I often do not agree with Rich, in this case it seems most in the country agree that while voting machine errors and the lack of a paper trail and/or accountability through careful audit is a big concern and something that absolutely has to be addressed, this election was not quite close enough to have the isolated irregularities make a difference in the outcome.
Just a couple of notes for the record: Rich does not own the Beacon, and I have never censured you. Rich and I together moderate the forum here because he had the idea for a Beaver Island forum and the Beacon had a pre-existing forum which didn't have much activity so we simply combined the two.
Personally, every time I call Dell and talk to someone in India, while I realize it's good for India, I do worry about outsourcing our country's jobs and the effect on our job market in the next decade. This is my personal opinion, as was Rich's above. As far as censorship, I'm not aware of any here... please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm assuming when you replied to "Roy" you meant Rory.)
While I often do not agree with Rich, in this case it seems most in the country agree that while voting machine errors and the lack of a paper trail and/or accountability through careful audit is a big concern and something that absolutely has to be addressed, this election was not quite close enough to have the isolated irregularities make a difference in the outcome.
Bush wins,Ohio by machine error
Jeff, #1. I have no idea where you got the idea I was accusing you of censoring me.
#2. You can assume I meant Rory instead of Roy. I doubt if Rory is going to get upset with me cause,I left one of the r's out of his name. Take me out to the wood shed for gosh sakes.
#3. Rule 3 at the bottom of this forum it states that the forum should be kept clean and appropiate for any age. I don't think one of the words that Rich used in his reply to Rory was clean or appropiate. I'm not refeering to the word moan.
I know children hear worse then that either from home or school but,if we posters have to abide by the rules of this forum then so should Rich.
#2. You can assume I meant Rory instead of Roy. I doubt if Rory is going to get upset with me cause,I left one of the r's out of his name. Take me out to the wood shed for gosh sakes.
#3. Rule 3 at the bottom of this forum it states that the forum should be kept clean and appropiate for any age. I don't think one of the words that Rich used in his reply to Rory was clean or appropiate. I'm not refeering to the word moan.
I know children hear worse then that either from home or school but,if we posters have to abide by the rules of this forum then so should Rich.
-
Robert
-
Robert
bush wins ohio votes by machine error
Robert you go guy! Isn't fun slaying dragons sometimes?Cherie
Michigander
-
J. McBain
Rich
Rich is just jealous because Kerry took the island.
On a serious note, I have never known Rich to censor anyone for their opinions â?? as long as they were not ripe for a libel lawsuit. From my experience, he respects others opinions and enjoys a good debate.
As for his use of words, I see nothing offensive about what he wrote. Perhaps we should all stop being so easily offended (cherie) and start discussing the issues and, of course, writing really good one-liners (Robert, I am talking to you. Keep up the zingers bud).
On a serious note, I have never known Rich to censor anyone for their opinions â?? as long as they were not ripe for a libel lawsuit. From my experience, he respects others opinions and enjoys a good debate.
As for his use of words, I see nothing offensive about what he wrote. Perhaps we should all stop being so easily offended (cherie) and start discussing the issues and, of course, writing really good one-liners (Robert, I am talking to you. Keep up the zingers bud).