# Are the media too soft on Bush?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [May 7, 2001, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676 "2001-05-07T19:30:07Z")
**Posts on this page:** 17
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2001, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/21 "2001-05-08T20:54:34Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \*
> \*\*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by rjung \*
> > 4. The honeymoon will not last forever. Bush might have gotten a free ride in his first hundred days in office, but eventually the public will get used to their lowered expectations for the guy. Then it’ll be time for a closer look at his dealings, though I suspect it still won’t be as vicious or critical as it ought to be.
>
> I’d like to believe that-but they said the same thing about Reagan-that people would wake up and see he didn’t know what the hell he was doing and making a mess of our country. But it never happened. \*\*
I’m still enough of an optimist to say that Dubya lacks Reagan’s charisma to pull this off. Add to that the lingering shadow of the Florida election hijack, and I daresay Bush is in for rougher times ahead.
(Of course, I’ll be doing my part to help. 🙂 We have to get a duly-elected President back in the White House as soon as possible…)
---
### Author:  [@Tatjana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tatjana)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2001, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/22 "2001-05-08T21:22:44Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Coup d’etat: A sudden stroke of state policy involving deliberate violation of constitutional forms by a group of persons in authority._
>
> **’Cept it wasn’t a violation of Constitutional forms. The very body that exists to interpret the Constitution said as such.**
‘Cept it was. The Supreme Court was not authorized by the Constitution to hear that case. What’s more, those five justices knew it. Those justices support states’ rights on every issue except when it came to putting a Bush into office. They ignored the Constitution and they ignored the laws they made themselves. There is no way to explain that decision expect as a deliberate violation of constitutional forms in order to install Bush into power.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _I don’t have time to look it up but I’m sure I got it from the Independent Media Center._
>
> \*\*I DO have time to look it up and I’m sure you’re wrong. Your Independent Media Center site took a helluva long time to load up, but, knowing that there are other sources of information in existence, took off on a little exploring of my own.
>
> [http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/21/inaugural.wrap/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/21/inaugural.wrap/index.html) - mentions “thousands” of protestors. Nothing about 20,000, though.
>
> [http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/protest.wrap/index.html#2](http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/protest.wrap/index.html#2) - mentions that 20,000 protestors were _expected_. No word if they actually showed up. However, it did mention that 10,000 protestors marched in San Francisco \*\*
So you’re providing evidence that the corporate media was not honest. I’m surprised you haven’t realized this already. Try witnessing a news story like this and compare it to what they report, and you’ll see what I mean.
Funny, they don’t even contradict the independent reports. One ignores the question, and the other one gives a vague answer. A [article in the Village Voice](http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0104/ladd.shtml) gives the 20,000 figure, and[here](http://www.webactive.com/cspin/cspin20010126.html) is another source. I’m sure there are others. [Here](http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=6929) is an interesting article on the counter-inauguration protests, though it doesn’t give an estimate of the number of protesters.
Are you guys looking for the Straight Dope or what the corporate media feeds you?
I don’t have time for this right now, so it looks like someone else will get the last word.
---
### Author:  [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2001, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/23 "2001-05-08T22:34:08Z")
Thanks for the links, Tatjana.
Question, though–
> [@](#):
>
> Are you guys looking for the Straight Dope or what the corporate media feeds you?
If I can’t trust the corporate media, why can I trust FAIR? Or The 'Voice? Or you?
---
### Author:  [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2001, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/24 "2001-05-08T23:55:36Z")
> [@](#):
>
> The Supreme Court was not authorized by the Constitution to hear that case.
Why?
> [@](#):
>
> They ignored the Constitution and they ignored the laws they made themselves.
As opposed to what the Florida SC did… ::scoff::
> [@](#):
>
> So you’re providing evidence that the corporate media was not honest.
I am? Where?
---
### Author:  [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2001, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/25 "2001-05-09T00:03:11Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > The Supreme Court was not authorized by the Constitution to hear that case.
>
> Why?
Because the manner in which the states choose their electors is left up to the states by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to decide this.
> [@](#):
>
> They ignored the Constitution and they ignored the laws they made themselves.
As opposed to what the Florida SC did… ::scoff::
[/quote]
Precisely. Do you homework before you scoff.
tj
---
### Author:  [@SterlingNorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SterlingNorth)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2001, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/26 "2001-05-09T00:03:24Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by **SPOOFE** _
> It depends on what you mean by “disenfranchised”. If you mean “to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote”, then I see no evidence of voters being disenfranchised (accusations, yes. Evidence, no).
>
> Now, if you mean “a lot of people didn’t get their way”, then yes, that’s being “disenfranchised”. Unfortunately, that’s not what the word means.
>
> Keep in mind that throwing out void votes doesn’t count as “disenfranchised”, since it was the voter who made their vote ineligible for counting (yeah, so the ballot was confusing… tough noogies).
That’s funny, I remember reading about voters who were thrown off the voter rolls because there name was _almost_ that of a felon (though those voters were not felons), and not alerted about this before election day. That would almost fit that definition of disenfranchised up there.
[Flawed Vote Cleansing](http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1)
Some had been convicted of a misdemeanor and not a felony, others were felons who had had their rights restored and others were simply cases of mistaken identity.
An additional 279 were not close matches with names on the county’s own voter rolls and were not notified. Of the 3,258 names on the original list, therefore, the county concluded that more than 15 percent were in error. If that ratio held statewide, no fewer than 7,000 voters were incorrectly targeted for removal from voting rosters.
[…]
Smith added that the DBT computer program automatically transformed various forms of a single name. In one case, a voter named “Christine” was identified as a felon based on the conviction of a “Christopher” with the same last name. Smith says ChoicePoint would not respond to queries about its proprietary methods.
[/quote]
CBS News killed this story supposedly because the Governor of Florida (I forget his name) disagreed with the account.
Also [The Nation](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010430&s=lantigua) also wrote a long article about this.
---
### Author:  [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2001, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/27 "2001-05-09T04:23:14Z")
Thanks for everyone’s elucidating comments. As I suspected from what I heard and read in the international media, there appears to be evidence of voter disenfranchisement. The controversial items mentioned by people in this thread made it all the way to the other side of the planet where I live, although I was not able to give detailed accounts of them. The big question is why is nothing being done about this farce?
Is it time for Cecil to do a Straight Dope column on this mess, or is the situation so convoluted that even he will not touch it? 😕
---
### Author:  [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2001, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/28 "2001-05-09T05:54:41Z")
Tejota…
> [@](#):
>
> Because the manner in which the states choose their electors is left up to the states by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to decide this.
Which is why the Supreme Court didn’t choose the electors. They decided which of the votes should count and whether or not the recounts should proceed according to the law. **They interpreted the law**.
Do YOUR homework, pal. Revisionist history won’t work so soon after the fact.
Sterling…
> [@](#):
>
> That’s funny, I remember reading about voters who were thrown off the voter rolls because there name was almost that of a felon
And I read about a two-headed Elvis clone. Even if the stories are accurate, however, they remain unfortunate isolated incidents (thankfully), and that isn’t the mass-disenfranchisement that’s often ballyhooed about.
---
### Author:  [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2001, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/29 "2001-05-09T07:33:13Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Posted by SPOOFE_
> Even if the stories are accurate, however, they remain unfortunate isolated incidents (thankfully), and that isn’t the mass-disenfranchisement that’s often ballyhooed about.
But how many incidents documented on paper does it take before we call it “mass” disenfranchisement? 100? 200? 3,000? Disenfranchisement is never acceptable, especially in such a close and suspicious election. There seem to be too many of these allegations (and in some cases supporting evidence) for this to go down in history as a regular and valid election. Simply denying or downplaying all the charges is not going to solve the problem, unless you view Bush under attack as the problem.
Regarding the interpretation of the law, that sounds like splitting hairs. I do not believe that the Supreme Court acted in accordance with the law and the best interests of voters when they made their decision, or they would have investigated the matter properly. They couldn’t order a lengthy but much-needed recount because the tension and other detrimental (including economic) effects of this drawn-out election were mounting by the day. In my opinion the Supreme Court acted in the best short-term interests of the nation (by putting an end to the election), but not of the voters.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2001, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/30 "2001-05-09T12:56:10Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \*
> Which is why the Supreme Court didn’t choose the electors. They decided which of the votes should count and whether or not the recounts should proceed according to the law. **They interpreted the law**.
Except it wasn’t theirs to interpret. State, not federal, law controls the selection of electors. To rationalize overturning it, Kennedy et al. had to invent a new Constitutional principle, and then admit it would apply to that case only.
> [@](#):
>
> Do YOUR homework, pal. Revisionist history won’t work so soon after the fact.
Quite so.
> [@](#):
>
> Even if the stories are accurate, however, they remain unfortunate isolated incidents (thankfully), and that isn’t the mass-disenfranchisement that’s often ballyhooed about. \*\*
You’ve already been provided with evidence that it was a systematic effort by the Jeb Bush administration, not “unfortunate isolated incidents”. Where is your cutoff between “isolated” and “mass”, and do you feel right about accepting either one?
**Abe** , sorry, pal, gotta disagree about the Supreme Court acting in the short-term interests of the nation (and how do you differentiate between the “interests of the nation” and “the interests of the voters”?). If the important thing were to get the selections of our leaders over with quickly, we wouldn’t need to even bother with elections. The principles of both democracy and republicanism require just a little more than that, though.
---
### Author:  [@Tatjana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tatjana)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2001, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/31 "2001-05-09T22:05:01Z")
If you haven’t seen this humerous (yet insightful) article explaining the _Bush v. Gore_ decision, you need to check it out. [A Simple Q&A that Every American Should Read](http://www.michaelmoore.com/framesets/mike_letters/letters_0122_parent.html)
---
### Author:  [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2001, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/32 "2001-05-09T22:55:43Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \*
> \*\*This is the National Review you’re using to buttress your views, for pity’s sake. Going to refer to a thread on the Free Republic web site next?
> \*\*
Elvis, I’m sorry if I upset you. I take back the suggestion that you read both sides of the issue.
Seriously, I remember reading that 1964 Republican Convention delegates were SF Chronicle or Examiner. In those days, it was conservatives who favored censorship and limiting one’s knowledge. Today, it’s the liberals. That’s one reason I’m no longer a liberal.
---
### Author:  [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2001, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/33 "2001-05-10T06:28:22Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Posted by ElvisL1ves_
> Abe, sorry, pal, gotta disagree about the Supreme Court acting in the short-term interests of the nation (and how do you differentiate between the “interests of the nation” and “the interests of the voters”?). If the important thing were to get the selections of our leaders over with quickly, we wouldn’t need to even bother with elections. The principles of both democracy and republicanism require just a little more than that, though.
I agree with you completely. But I support that the best short-term interests of the nation are not exactly the same thing as the best (long- and short-term) interests of the voters. Had the interests of the voters been heeded, there would have been thorough recounts and investigations into the several anomalies reported, no matter what the consequences.
But that did not happen because the best interests of the voters were a variance with the best _short-term_ interests of the nation. By short-term interests I refer to the country’s credibility (on all levels from political to judiciary), economic machinery, public opinion, International standing, and so forth. Had Gore not been quashed in a system passed as legal, a lengthy battle over the election results would have further harmed this list of items _in the short term_. At least, that’s my impression.
---
### Author:  [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2001, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/34 "2001-05-10T09:35:35Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Except it wasn’t theirs to interpret. State, not federal, law controls the selection of electors.
Of course. But the selection of the electors was not the case… the recounts were. SCOTUS decided on which recounts were valid, and which votes to include. Sure, the state electors were selected as a result of that, but there was no direct intervention upon the electors (or elector selection policy) by the SCOTUS.
Now, try saying “selection electors electors selected intervention elector selection” three times fast.
---
### Author:  [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2001, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/35 "2001-05-11T00:46:17Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Abe \*
> **But that did not happen because the best interests of the voters were a variance with the best _short-term_ interests of the nation. By short-term interests I refer to the country’s credibility (on all levels from political to judiciary), economic machinery, public opinion, International standing, and so forth. Had Gore not been quashed in a system passed as legal, a lengthy battle over the election results would have further harmed this list of items _in the short term_.**
I’m not convinced that hasn’t happened with Bush appointed to office. At the least, our country’s credibility and international standing haven’t been _improving_ since the inaugueration. And you don’t need to be alan Greenspan to see that the “economic machinery” is having problems right now.
[SUB](Ah, let’s just admit Rehnquist and O’Connor wanted to retire under a Republican administration and be done with it…)[/SUB]
---
### Author:  [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2001, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/36 "2001-05-11T03:16:07Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Ace\_Face \*
> \*\*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by december \*
> > THE LIBERAL MEDIA VS BUSH: Only 22 percent of respondents to the New York Times’ _online poll_…
>
> You lost me right off the bat. Any survey researher will tell you those online polls are worthless for anything other than PR.
> \*\*
I completely agree with you, Ace. This quote was from a column by Andrew Sullivan. He mentioned the poll to dramatize his main point – that the NYT and WP have been giving W worse coverage than they gave Clinton. As you observed, the mention of this on-line poll actually weakened his case, because the poll is worthless. I had noticed the problem, but quoted Sullivan’s article anyhow, because it was relevant to the OP, it included some (presumably) factual info, and it was amusing.
Sullivan’s main point about the NYT and WP comes from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, who, I believe are affiliated with or sponsored by the Pew Memorial Trust. These people probably are reliable. (On the other hand, I can’t guarantee that Sullivan reported their result accurately.)
---
### Author:  [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2001, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676/37 "2001-05-11T03:44:19Z")
Tejota:
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Because the manner in which the states choose their electors is left up to the states by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to decide this.
\*\*
And doesn’t Florida law give the power to the Secretary of State to certify a vote count? And didn’t Florida’s Secretary of State do that? And what was the result of that vote count?
And doesn’t Florida law say electors will be chosen in a manner proscribed by the state Legislature? And what was the Legislature preparing to do (or, more to the point, what travesty were they preparing to ensure didn’t happen) before the U.S. Supreme Court rightly made the point moot?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-media-too-soft-on-bush/64676.md?page=1)