Is there too much censorship in the media?

[Highland 0]

Frankly, I don't care because the only "exit polling" that matters is the one done in the voting booth...

I'm in favour of abolishing exit polls altogether. How hard is it to wait until the actual votes are counted before a winner is declared?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Frankly, I don't care because the only "exit polling" that matters is the one done in the voting booth...

I'm in favour of abolishing exit polls altogether. How hard is it to wait until the actual votes are counted before a winner is declared?

You'll never get rid of them because the media wants to call states the second polls close.

 

Just look at Florida in 2000, they didn't even wait until all the polls in the state were closed.

[Ravenbomb 0]

yes

[Highland 0]

Frankly, I don't care because the only "exit polling" that matters is the one done in the voting booth...

I'm in favour of abolishing exit polls altogether. How hard is it to wait until the actual votes are counted before a winner is declared?

You'll never get rid of them because the media wants to call states the second polls close.

 

Just look at Florida in 2000, they didn't even wait until all the polls in the state were closed.

All the more reason to get rid of them.

[Guest MikeSC]

Sadly, they cannot be made illegal and too much money is there for them to not exist.

-=Mike

[Guest BDC]

I'd like to appeal to journalistic integrity to prevent the use of exit polls in the future as well as calling a state before the polls close...

 

But that'd be a damn stupid idea.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'd like to appeal to journalistic integrity to prevent the use of exit polls in the future as well as calling a state before the polls close...

 

But that'd be a damn stupid idea.

Journalists are, simply, lazy. They are incredibly lazy --- which is why polls are such huge news for basically the entire YEAR of an election (gives them numbers to throw about without requiring even the tiniest modicum of actual work on their part).

 

They'll stick with the exit polls because they're significantly easier than actual reporting.

-=Mike

[Guest BDC]

I'd like to appeal to journalistic integrity to prevent the use of exit polls in the future as well as calling a state before the polls close...

 

But that'd be a damn stupid idea.

Journalists are, simply, lazy. They are incredibly lazy --- which is why polls are such huge news for basically the entire YEAR of an election (gives them numbers to throw about without requiring even the tiniest modicum of actual work on their part).

 

They'll stick with the exit polls because they're significantly easier than actual reporting.

-=Mike

I know some folks that write for newspapers that actually put a whole lot of work and integrity to their written word. I can count them on one hand and they all work for the campus newspaper.

 

Downright sad.

[Red Baron 0]

What is exit polling?

[Guest MikeSC]

What is exit polling?

Asking voters whom they voted for when they leave a polling place.

-=Mike

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

 

Journalists are, simply, lazy. They are incredibly lazy --- which is why polls are such huge news for basically the entire YEAR of an election (gives them numbers to throw about without requiring even the tiniest modicum of actual work on their part).

 

They'll stick with the exit polls because they're significantly easier than actual reporting.

-=Mike

 

As a student of journalism, I take great exception to that. With over 300 hours of hands on journalism at school, I can safely say it's not easy work.

 

Polls are good to have, to give some idea of what will happen. Necessary? Nope. But why not? It only helps add to the political slant found in every medium.

 

Exit polls: Also, why not? Seeing as how this election was likely the biggest of our lifetimes(certainly the biggest of our lifetimes to date), how many people were realistically glued to their television sets? 8, 9 figures? Without question. While votes are counted, there's only so much that can be reported. So, why not get a general idea of who did what, or who will do what? It had been widely noted by every major American network(although I didn't watch FOX, which I refuse because of its shameless right slant) that exit polls were not definite. Again, it at least gave us a general idea.

 

Journalism is not easy, and certainly not for the lazy. Empathy, please.

 

And before I get flamed for my Fox comment, yes, I'm privy to a college newspaper. Yes, it's pretty liberal. No, I don't take it as gospel. Bear that in mind if you reply, please. Thanks.

 

[NoCalMike 0]

However, it is quite easy to manipulate Diebold results from what I have read. I don't think it would take the grand orchestration that you suggest. Just a few targeted manipulations in key states.

 

I think it's funny that Repubs are so defensive about reform of e-voting if they are so sure that the process was clean.

I find it kind of funny and frustrating to, that people had been making a fuss over these Diebold e-voting machines for over 2 years now, yet it was basically ignored. Or the fact that www.billionairesforbush.com made a parody of how the voting machines would be manipulated and screwed to insure Ohio was delivered for George Bush, including the quote from the manufacturer of the diebold machine saying he would personally deliver Ohio for George Bush. Now, if this had happened post-election I would write it off like everyone else, but the fact that all this was being made an issue over, 18 months ago......well that is different.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Exit polling isn't too bad.

 

But as a general rule, the raw data used from the polls should be posted. Preferably with some more data of exit poll results per precinct and the vote totals from the precinct and whatever else

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

 

To think, I had an opinion before my journalism post above.

 

Yes/no, there's too much/not enough censorship.

 

I admit I wouldn't have even thought of the politcal slant and instantly voted no until the second or third poster made that point. So, it somewhat offsets my no case. If I may:

 

No, there's not enough. There's much more to censorship than bleeping out swearing or blurring someone's face. Graphic violence and gory bloody scenes and depictions seem common on newscasts. Often, I find them to be in poor taste or without tact. With that in mind, I'd like to see much less sensationalism*cough, Fox News* and, yes, more censorship.

 

Maybe if censorship were porridge, Goldilocks would choose the current state.

 

[NoCalMike 0]

Censorship via Media Consolidation should worry people as well.

[Guest Cerebus]

Censorship via Media Consolidation should worry people as well.

Not to mention the Son of Powell.

[Guest MikeSC]

Journalists are, simply, lazy. They are incredibly lazy --- which is why polls are such huge news for basically the entire YEAR of an election (gives them numbers to throw about without requiring even the tiniest modicum of actual work on their part).

 

They'll stick with the exit polls because they're significantly easier than actual reporting.

-=Mike

 

As a student of journalism, I take great exception to that. With over 300 hours of hands on journalism at school, I can safely say it's not easy work.

 

Polls are good to have, to give some idea of what will happen. Necessary? Nope. But why not? It only helps add to the political slant found in every medium.

 

Exit polls: Also, why not? Seeing as how this election was likely the biggest of our lifetimes(certainly the biggest of our lifetimes to date), how many people were realistically glued to their television sets? 8, 9 figures? Without question. While votes are counted, there's only so much that can be reported. So, why not get a general idea of who did what, or who will do what? It had been widely noted by every major American network(although I didn't watch FOX, which I refuse because of its shameless right slant) that exit polls were not definite. Again, it at least gave us a general idea.

 

Journalism is not easy, and certainly not for the lazy. Empathy, please.

 

And before I get flamed for my Fox comment, yes, I'm privy to a college newspaper. Yes, it's pretty liberal. No, I don't take it as gospel. Bear that in mind if you reply, please. Thanks.

My complaints about journalists aren't rare complaints. The bigger a journalist gets, the less work they wish to do. So, they replace polls with ACTUAL reporting. Can you name any ACTUAL reporting done in the past year or so? I have a hard time thinking of anything the MSM did.

 

Networks can claim that "Exit polls aren't definite" --- but they play a STRONG role in when they call states (again, why do you think PA, which was closer than OH ever was, was called for Kerry quickly while OH wasn't called for a day or so afterwards?). The polls impact the "reporting" of the story --- and then the press has the sheer audacity to claim that the "fact" that they "cannot call a state for a candidate yet" (a problem SOLELY for Bush, mind you) is a bad sign for the candidate.

 

FNC's election coverage was worse than the other networks --- and they were insanely horrendous. The only good things were Judy Woodruff nearly bursting into tears when FL went for Bush and Couric wearing black for two days after the election.

 

Also, how can you bash FNC when you refuse to watch it?

I find it kind of funny and frustrating to, that people had been making a fuss over these Diebold e-voting machines for over 2 years now, yet it was basically ignored. Or the fact that www.billionairesforbush.com made a parody of how the voting machines would be manipulated and screwed to insure Ohio was delivered for George Bush, including the quote from the manufacturer of the diebold machine saying he would personally deliver Ohio for George Bush. Now, if this had happened post-election I would write it off like everyone else, but the fact that all this was being made an issue over, 18 months ago......well that is different.

Fascinating stuff.

 

Truly.

 

A few tiny problems.

 

Diebold machines are checked by an independent group REGULARLY and by client states who use them. It'd be a little impossible to rig them.

 

Oh, just so you know --- the director of Diebold's elections-systems division is a Democrat.

 

So is their head of marketing, Mark Radke, who has given only to Democrats.

 

For MORE debunking of this really absurd conspiracy theory, try:

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65665,00.html

http://vote.caltech.edu/Reports/VotingMachines3.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...v10.html?sub=AR

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Journalists are, simply, lazy. They are incredibly lazy --- which is why polls are such huge news for basically the entire YEAR of an election (gives them numbers to throw about without requiring even the tiniest modicum of actual work on their part).

 

They'll stick with the exit polls because they're significantly easier than actual reporting.

-=Mike

 

As a student of journalism, I take great exception to that. With over 300 hours of hands on journalism at school, I can safely say it's not easy work.

 

Polls are good to have, to give some idea of what will happen. Necessary? Nope. But why not? It only helps add to the political slant found in every medium.

 

Exit polls: Also, why not? Seeing as how this election was likely the biggest of our lifetimes(certainly the biggest of our lifetimes to date), how many people were realistically glued to their television sets? 8, 9 figures? Without question. While votes are counted, there's only so much that can be reported. So, why not get a general idea of who did what, or who will do what? It had been widely noted by every major American network(although I didn't watch FOX, which I refuse because of its shameless right slant) that exit polls were not definite. Again, it at least gave us a general idea.

 

Journalism is not easy, and certainly not for the lazy. Empathy, please.

 

And before I get flamed for my Fox comment, yes, I'm privy to a college newspaper. Yes, it's pretty liberal. No, I don't take it as gospel. Bear that in mind if you reply, please. Thanks.

My complaints about journalists aren't rare complaints. The bigger a journalist gets, the less work they wish to do. So, they replace polls with ACTUAL reporting. Can you name any ACTUAL reporting done in the past year or so? I have a hard time thinking of anything the MSM did.

 

Networks can claim that "Exit polls aren't definite" --- but they play a STRONG role in when they call states (again, why do you think PA, which was closer than OH ever was, was called for Kerry quickly while OH wasn't called for a day or so afterwards?). The polls impact the "reporting" of the story --- and then the press has the sheer audacity to claim that the "fact" that they "cannot call a state for a candidate yet" (a problem SOLELY for Bush, mind you) is a bad sign for the candidate.

 

FNC's election coverage was worse than the other networks --- and they were insanely horrendous. The only good things were Judy Woodruff nearly bursting into tears when FL went for Bush and Couric wearing black for two days after the election.

 

Also, how can you bash FNC when you refuse to watch it?

I find it kind of funny and frustrating to, that people had been making a fuss over these Diebold e-voting machines for over 2 years now, yet it was basically ignored. Or the fact that www.billionairesforbush.com made a parody of how the voting machines would be manipulated and screwed to insure Ohio was delivered for George Bush, including the quote from the manufacturer of the diebold machine saying he would personally deliver Ohio for George Bush. Now, if this had happened post-election I would write it off like everyone else, but the fact that all this was being made an issue over, 18 months ago......well that is different.

Fascinating stuff.

 

Truly.

 

A few tiny problems.

 

Diebold machines are checked by an independent group REGULARLY and by client states who use them. It'd be a little impossible to rig them.

 

Oh, just so you know --- the director of Diebold's elections-systems division is a Democrat.

 

So is their head of marketing, Mark Radke, who has given only to Democrats.

 

For MORE debunking of this really absurd conspiracy theory, try:

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65665,00.html

http://vote.caltech.edu/Reports/VotingMachines3.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...v10.html?sub=AR

-=Mike

One of the sources wanted me to download something so I rejected it, but the other two articles didn't debunk anything, they simply stated that if the fraud occurred then it would the most amazing fraud in election history, to paraphrase.

[Guest MikeSC]

The caltech study demonstrates how impossible the voter fraud is.

 

So, of course, you assume Diebold rigged the election, rather than the infinitely more plausible "The exit polls were wrong" scenario.

 

The left: Denying defeat for 4 years.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Read a debunking of the CalTech study here.

[Guest MikeSC]

Read a debunking of the CalTech study here.

Sadly, that site FURTHER proves how ridiculous the conspiracy theories are.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

So, of course, you assume Diebold rigged the election, rather than the infinitely more plausible "The exit polls were wrong" scenario.

 

The left: Denying defeat for 4 years.

-=Mike

No, not really, I am just simply pointing out that this diebold stuff is not simply post-election "omg we lost...ummm blame it on diebold yeah yeah, that will work" banter. It is an issue that has been discussed and argued for over two years.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

So, of course, you assume Diebold rigged the election, rather than the infinitely more plausible "The exit polls were wrong" scenario.

 

I haven't seen any proof of either.

 

I haven't seen any circumstancial evidence that the exit polls were wrong.

 

I have seen quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that there were problems with the vote.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, of course, you assume Diebold rigged the election, rather than the infinitely more plausible "The exit polls were wrong" scenario.

 

I haven't seen any proof of either.

 

I haven't seen any circumstancial evidence that the exit polls were wrong.

 

I have seen quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that their were problems with the vote.

I have the final voting results that state that the polls were wrong.

 

You have something besides that?

 

It's up to YOU to prove that there was fraud, not anybody else to prove there wasn't any.

 

I've heard of precious few problems with the machines. What I hear now is the left, as they did in 2000, trying to smear Bush as somebody who steals elections.

No, not really, I am just simply pointing out that this diebold stuff is not simply post-election "omg we lost...ummm blame it on diebold yeah yeah, that will work" banter. It is an issue that has been discussed and argued for over two years.

It's also been shown to be utter bullshit for two years.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Look, fuck who won the election. Here's the real problem:

 

Expert testimony on quality of current voting machines

[edit]

Dr. Professor Avi Rubin

Testimony of Dr. Aviel D. Rubin to U.S. Federal Election Assistance Commission, on Electronic Voting Systems, May 2004:

 

(Witness credentials: Professor of Computer Science, Technical Director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, served on SERVE security peer review group for Dept. of Defense, member of National Committee on Voting Integrity, Secure Systems Research Department at AT&T (cryptography, computer and internet security) [65] (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/elections/schadevmd42204cmp.pdf), 2004 election judge in local county)

There is no way for voters to verify that their votes were recorded correctly.

There is no way to publicly count the votes.

In the case of a controversial election, meaningful recounts are impossible.

With respect to the Diebold Accuvote TS and TSx, we found gross design and programming errors, as outlined in our attached report. The current certification process resulted in these machines being approved for use and being used in elections.

We do not know if the machines from other vendors are as bad as the Diebold ones because they have not made their systems available for analysis.

"On the spectrum of terrible to very good, we are sitting at terrible. Not only have the vendors not implemented security safeguards that are possible, they have not even correctly implemented the ones that are easy. If I had more time I would debunk the myth of the security of the so-called triple redundancy in the Diebold machines. I would explain the limitations of logic and accuracy testing in an adversarial setting, I would explain how easy it would be for a malicious programmer to rig the election with today's DREs [voting machines], and I would describe the seriousness of the security flaws that we and others have found in the Diebold machines. These are all things that I could have done and would have been happy to do, before anybody started purchasing and using these DREs. But nobody asked."

"Since our study came out, three other major studies ... all cited serious security vulnerabilities in DREs. RABA, which is closely allied with the National Security Agency, called for a "pervasive rewrite" of Diebold's code. Yet, the vendors, and many election officials ... continue to insist that the machines are perfectly secure. I cannot fathom the basis for their claims. I do not know of a single computer security expert who would testify that these machines are secure. I personally know dozens of computer security experts who would testify that they are not." (Source: [66] (http://avirubin.com/eac.pdf))

[edit]

Dr. Professor Rebecca Mercuri

[Dr. Rebecca Mercuri (Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Bryn Mawr College, referred to by some as "the leading independent expert on electronic voting technology") reports that:

 

"No electronic voting system has been certified to even the lowest level of the U.S. government or international computer security standards such as the ISO Common Criteria, nor are they required to comply with such standards. Thus, no current electronic voting system is secure by the U.S. government's own standards.".

"...any programmer can write code that displays one thing on a screen, records something else, and prints yet another result." There is "no known way" to ensure that this is not happening inside of a voting system.

Summary [67] (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/INF307A.html) Dr Mercuri topical website [68] (http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html)

[NoCalMike 0]

QUOTE]

It's also been shown to be utter bullshit for two years.

-=Mike

It has? Ok then, whatever you say.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Stupid question: Smitty, are you Jesse Ewiak? Haven't seen him around and you sound a bit like him...

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

So, of course, you assume Diebold rigged the election, rather than the infinitely more plausible "The exit polls were wrong" scenario.

 

I haven't seen any proof of either.

 

I haven't seen any circumstancial evidence that the exit polls were wrong.

 

I have seen quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that their were problems with the vote.

I have the final voting results that state that the polls were wrong.

 

You have something besides that?

 

It's up to YOU to prove that there was fraud, not anybody else to prove there wasn't any.

 

I've heard of precious few problems with the machines. What I hear now is the left, as they did in 2000, trying to smear Bush as somebody who steals elections.

No, not really, I am just simply pointing out that this diebold stuff is not simply post-election "omg we lost...ummm blame it on diebold yeah yeah, that will work" banter. It is an issue that has been discussed and argued for over two years.

It's also been shown to be utter bullshit for two years.

-=Mike

Yeah, I heard the same thing from Fox over and over again that the voting machines were tip top perfect in every way. They said it over and over again. Which makes sense. Leaps of faith aren't just for religion anymore.