-Caveat Lector-

THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2001

Florida ballots face one more count

<http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/01/18/p18s2.htm>

By Kim Campbell
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Maybe you can put the Florida recount behind you, but America's largest
news organizations can't. They are pooling their resources to find out, for
history's sake, what those uncounted ballots really look like.
Results are expected in the next few months from partners The Miami Herald
and USA Today, and from a highly unusual consortium announced last week
that includes The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington
Post, CNN, and the Associated Press.
By sharing the significant costs of the investigation, these normally
competitive news outlets will be able to bring information to the public
that may improve the election process in the future and help answer
questions about what actually happened in Florida.
"We spent 36 days arguing about what was on 180,000 ballots that were never
seen," says John Broder, Washington editor for The New York Times and a
coordinator of the consortium. "Those ballots contain a wealth of information."
When the results are released, Americans will have a better idea of how
many different types of ballots there were, and how many dimpled ones, for
example, each candidate had in his pile.In some cases, consortium members
may draw conclusions about what voters expected to do, but they say their
goal is to create a definitive archive of the ballots, not to change the
outcome of the election.
The idea appeals to readers in Florida, says Mark Seibel, assistant
managing editor at The Miami Herald. "The mail is overwhelmingly in favor
of our doing it. And the reason is a very simple one: curiosity," he says.
But it doesn't sit well with some Republicans, who are concerned about the
accuracy of the media's approach and about taking legitimacy away from
President-elect Bush.
Mediawatchers argue this is a classic case for press involvement. As a
watchdog, it should be investigating the process by which an elected
official came to power.
"That's exactly the function the press is supposed to perform. That's why
it's called the Fourth Estate," says Tom Rosenstiel, director of the
Project for Excellence in Journalism. "What matters is that the public gets
the truest answer it can."
If the results turn out in Mr. Bush's favor, it might give his leadership
more credence, not less, notes Mr. Seibel. "Our projections have indicated
that it's quite likely [Bush won]. But you don't really know until you look
at the ballots," he says.
Likewise, he says, if there are more ballots that look like they belonged
to Al Gore, it could lead to finding ways to avoid mistaken outcomes in the
future.
The Herald started its project mid-December and is looking at 60,000
ballots considered undervotes - those where the presidential choice
couldn't be determined. The consortium is looking at all 180,000 uncounted
votes, including the overvotes, where more than one candidate was selected.
Critics were initially concerned that reporters, with their own political
leanings, would be examining the ballots - but that's not allowed under
Florida law. Both groups are using outside organizations, who themselves
don't touch the ballots, but watch as designated election officials do. The
Herald and USA Today are being represented by BDO Seidman, an accounting
firm, and the consortium is using the National Opinion Research Center, a
nonprofit survey-research organization affiliated with the University of
Chicago.
NORC will provide the members of its group with raw data, and the news
organizations will analyze it separately. The Herald declined to join the
consortium because of disagreements over methodology, and because it wanted
to get credit for work that will likely affect readers in its own backyard.
That may work to the public's advantage. With more than one group weighing
in, "you get a lot closer to an authoritative answer," notes Mr.  Rosenstiel.
He explains that the reason people were comfortable with the final outcome
of the election is because in the month leading up to it the process was
made transparent by the press.
Seibel agrees. "The more the merrier because maybe there's something we've
overlooked," he says, adding, "In the end, because two groups looked at it,
we'll know more."

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to