Text 539, 226 rader
Skriven 2004-08-03 10:48:53 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: 59 Deceits - Pt 2
=========================
   ----- 59deceits-p2.txt begins -----

2000 Election Night
Deceits 1-2
 
Fahrenheit 9/11 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown Al Gore
rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The
conspicuous sign on stage reads "Florida Victory." Moore creates the impression
that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida. Moore's voiceover claims,
"And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy, like a miracle had taken place."
The verb tense of past perfect ("had taken") furthers the impression that the
election has been
completed.
 
Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day, before polls
had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election day, but went home to
Tennessee to await the results. The "Florida Victory" sign reflected Gore’s
hopes, not any actual election results. ("Gore Campaigns Into Election Day,"
Associated Press, Nov. 7, 2000.)
 
The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the
narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in
favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox
said it, it must be true.'"
 
We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake
and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."
 
Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim
about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.

 
In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the
evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of
the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 P.M., Eastern
Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty
seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 P.M., Fox called
Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the
networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at
8:02 P.M., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida
polls were closed. 
 
About an hour before the polls closed in panhandle Florida, the networks called
the U.S. Senate race in favor of the Democratic candidate. The networks
seriously compounded the problem because from 6-7 Central Time, they repeatedly
announced that polls had closed in Florida--even though polls were open in the
panhandle. (See also Joan Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television's
Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001.)
 
The false announcements that the polls were closed, as well as the premature
calls (the Presidential race ten minutes early; the Senate race an hour early),
may have cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as
discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided;
some last-minute voters on their way to the polling place turned around and
went home. Other voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In
Florida, as elsewhere, voters
who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting
after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics
is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting
when they hear that their side has already lost. Thus, on election night 1980,
when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were
still open on the west coast, the early concession was blamed for costing the
Democrats several
Congressional seats in the West, such as that of 20-year incumbent James
Corman. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner
while west coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic
losses in the West; Congress even held hearings about prohibiting the
disclosure of exit polls before voting had ended in the any of the 48
contiguous states. 
 
Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally,
the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida
panhandle is a Republican stronghold. Most of Central Time Zone Florida is in
the 1st Congressional District, which is known as the "Redneck Riviera." In
that district, Bob Dole beat Bill Clinton by 69,000 votes in 1996, even though
Clinton won the state by 300,000 votes. So depress overall turnout in the
panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic
votes. A 2001 study by John Lott suggested that the early calls cost Bush at
least 7,500 votes, and perhaps many more. Another study reported that the
networks reduced panhandle turn-out by about 19,000 votes, costing Bush about
12,000 votes and Gore about 7,000 votes.
 
At 10:00 p.m., which networks took the lead in retracting the premature Florida
win for Gore? They were CNN and CBS, not Fox. (The two networks were using a
shared Decision Team.) See Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall
Jamieson, "CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis,
Recommendations" (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.) 
 
In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until 2
a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call.
 
Over four hours later, at 2:16 A.M., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner,
as did all the other networks by 2:20 A.M.
 
At 3:59 A.M., CBS took the lead in retracting the Florida call for Bush. All
the other networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead within eight minutes.
That the networks arrived at similar conclusions within a short period of time
is not surprising, since they were all using the same data from the Voter News
Service. (Mason, et al. "CBS News Coverage.") As the CBS timeline details,
throughout the evening all networks used VNS data to call states, even though
VNS had not called the
state; sometimes the network calls were made hours ahead of the VNS call.
 
Moore’s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his
style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly
speaking, false. But notice how he says, "Then something called the Fox News
Channel called the election in favor of the other guy…" The impression created
is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of
Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change ("All of a
sudden the other networks
said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'")
 
This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to
deceive the viewer.
 
[Moore response: On the Florida victory celebration, none. On the networks
calls: provides citations for the early and incorrect Florida calls for Gore,
around 8 p.m. Eastern Time, and for the late-evening network calls of Florida
for Bush around 2:20 a.m. Doesn't mention the retraction of the Florida calls
at 10 p.m., or that CBS led the retraction.] 
 
2000 Election Recount
Deceit 3
 
How did Bush win Florida? "Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is
also the vote count woman." Actually Florida Secretary of State Katherine
Harris (who was Bush's Florida co-chair, not "the chairman") was not the "vote
count woman." Vote counting in Florida is performed by the election
commissioners in each of Florida's counties. The Florida Secretary of State
merely certifies the reported vote. The office does not count votes.
 
A little while later, Fahrenheit shows Jeffrey Toobin (a sometime talking head
lawyer for CNN) claiming that if the Supreme Court had allowed a third recount
to proceed past the legal deadline, "under every scenario Gore won the
election."
 
Fahrenheit shows only a snippet of Toobin's remarks on CNN. What Fahrenheit
does not show is that Toobin admitted on CNN that the only scenarios for a Gore
victory involved a type of recount which Gore had never requested in his
lawsuits, and which would have been in violation of Florida law. Toobin's
theory likewise depends on re-assigning votes which are plainly marked for one
candidate (Pat Buchanan) to Gore, although there are no provisions in Florida
law to guess at who a voter "really" meant to vote for and to re-assign the
vote.
 
A study by a newspaper consortium including the Miami Herald and USA Today
disproves Fahrenheit's claim that Gore won under any scenario. As USA Today
summarized, on May 11, 2001:

     "Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in
four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."

     "Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand
recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable
vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards." 

     "Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by
machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted
by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under
the two least used." 

Throughout the Florida election controversy, the focus was on
"undervotes"--ballots which were disqualified because the voter had not
properly indicated a candidate, such as by punching out a small piece of paper
on the paper ballot. The recounts attempted to discern voter intentions from
improperly-marked ballots. Thus, if a ballot had a "hanging chad," a recount
official might decide that the voter intended to vote for the candidate, but
failed to properly punch out the chad; so
the recounter would award the candidate a vote from the "spoiled" ballot. Gore
was seeking additional recounts only of undervotes. The only scenario by which
Gore would have won Florida would have involved recounts of
"overvotes"--ballots which were spoiled because the voter voted for more than
one candidate (such as by marking two names, or by punching out two chads).
Most of the overvotes which were recoverable were those on which the voter had
punched out a chad (or
made a check mark) and had also written the candidate's name on the write-in
line. Gore's lawsuits never sought a recount of overvotes, so even if the
Supreme Court had allowed a Florida recount to continue past the legal
deadline, Bush still would have won the additional recount which Gore sought. 
 
A separate study conducted by a newspaper consortium including the New York
Times and Wall Street Journal found that if there had been a statewide recount
of all undervotes and overvotes, Gore would have won under seven different
standards. However, if there had been partial recounts under any of the various
recounts sought by Gore or ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush would
have won under every scenario.

A very interesting web widget published by the New York Times allows readers to
crunch the data any way they want: what standards for counting ballots, whose
counting system to apply, and how to treat overvotes. It's certainly possible
under some of the variable scenarios to produce a Gore victory. But it's
undeniably dishonest for Fahrenheit to assert that Gore would win under any
scenario. 

Moore amplifies the deceit with a montage of newspaper headlines, purporting to
show that Gore really won. One article shows a date of December 19, 2001, with
a large headline reading, "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won Election." The
article supposedly comes from The Pantagraph, a daily newspaper in Bloomington,
Illinois. But actually, the headline is merely for a letter to the editor--not
a news article. The letter to the editor headline is significantly enlarged to
make it look like an article headline. The actual printed letter looked nothing
like the "article" Moore fabricated for the film. The letter ran on December 5,
not December 19. The Pantagraph ontacted Moore's office to ask for an
explanation, but the office refused to comment. 

The Pantagraph's attorney has sent Fahrenheit's distributor a letter stating
that Moore's use of the faked headline and story was "unauthorized" and
"misleading" and a" misrepresentation of facts." The letter states that Moore
infringed the copyright of The Pantagraph, and asks for an apology, a
correction, and an explanation. The letters asks Moore to "correct the
inaccurate information which has been depicted in your film."

[Moore response: Cites articles consistent with my explanation. Fails to
acknowledge that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved recounting
methods which Gore never requested in his lawsuits. To tell viewers that Gore
would have won "under every scenario" is absurd. No explanation for The
Pantagaph fraud.]
   ----- 59deceits-p2.txt ends -----

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)