Media swallowing for Bush again (Iraqi election turnout was low)

[59millionmorons]

By Greg Mitchell

(February 02, 2005) -- Everyone, of course, is thrilled that so many Iraqis turned out to vote, in the face of threats and intimidation, on Sunday. But in hailing, and at times gushing, over the turnout, has the American media (as it did two years ago in the hyping of Saddam's WMDs) forgotten core journalistic principles in regard to fact-checking and weighing partisan assertions?

It appears so. For days, the press repeated, as gospel, assertions offered by an election official that 8 million Iraqis went to the polls on Sunday, an impressive 57% turnout rate. I questioned those figures as early as last Sunday, and offered the detailed analysis below on Wednesday. Finally, on Thursday night, John F. Burns and Dexter Filkins of The New York Times reported that Iraqi election officials have quietly "backtracked, saying that the 8 million estimate had been reached hastily on the basis of telephone reports from polling stations across the country and that the figure could change."

Then, in Friday's paper, Burns and Filkins noted that one election commision official was "evasive about the turnout, implying it might end up significantly lower than the initial estimate." They quoted this official, Safwat Radhid, exclaiming: "Only God Almighty knows the final turnout now." They revealed that the announcement of a turnout number, expected to be released this weekend, has been put off for a week, due to the "complex" tabulation system.



http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000788083

[LiberalVoice]

1. "due to the 'complex' tabulation system."

1, 2, 3, 4...errrr...1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6....ummmm....1, 2, 3...Oh screw it.

[soothsayer]

2. they have to throw out alot of ballots, then add a bunch more

so they don't know the numbers yet

what a crock! theirs was as phony as ours

[papau]

3. LOL but with a tear in the eye

:-(

[havocmom]

4. It's not a DEMOCRATIC election when areas were not allowed to vote.

Whole parts of the country did not participate in the Iraqi election because they were too dangerous!.

It's not an exercise in democracy when parts of the population don't get to vote! Sorta like Ohio and other areas of the US where there were systematic efforts to prevent portions of the population from exercising their franchise.

[yebrent]

5. I kept hearing 60-75%

over and over again on Sunday from the networks. Then I go on-line and find all kinds of articles disputing the numbers and noting that the Sunnie turnout was practically nonexistent. Of course the major media didn't report that until days later, if at all.

I got rid of cable last year due to anger over the cable news virtual blackout of General Clark during the primaries (the right leaners where afraid of him and the left leaners wanted it over quickly so they backed Dean and then Kerry).

I think it might be time to get rid of the TV all together. But then I would have to cancel netflix. what to do...what to do...

[progressiveBadger]

8. Don't get rid of it.

Just don't watch it. Keep it around just in case though.
BTW, welcome to DU fellow Ishmael follower. :)

[yebrent]

13. thanks for the welcome

"There is no one right way to live" - Daniel Quinn

[RuleofLaw]

6. The headline in The St. Petersburg Times

on Monday, the day after the election was:

Iraqis Flock To The Pools In Throngs.

Then the smaller headline was: Voter Turnout, Winner unknown.

Pretty amassing. Since then there has not been a word in the paper about the election.

[tgnyc]

7. More on Iraq election nonsense

at www.intelligencesquad.com/id105.html

[fooj]

9. "complex" tab. system-give me a break!

They carted off the ballots in storage containers! What makes this complex?

[jswordy]

10. Just want to note, though I know this is unpopular...

...to bring up here and I would likely get dinged repeatedly in a "vote on the user" system if I posted it then, that in EVERY SINGLE NEWS STORY I READ there was a disclaimer paragraph where Iraqi officials said the participation levels were unknown and would not be known for weeks. Every one.

It was only in low-quality cable TV coverage that that fact was omitted, proving again that if you want all the facts, READ!

That said, I applaud E&P for continuing its commitment to critiquing the news media by publishing such commentary.

[dbt]

11. jswordy, Murka is a nation that LIVES by low-quality cable TV.

Millions will swear to you that the participation levels were, in fact, known simply because Fochs Noose did not say otherwise. Once again, the EVIL of "If it's important, it will be on the News" rears its snaky head.

:argh:
dbt

[itzamirakul]

12. I don't know why, I just KNEW better when I kept hearing them report

that "millions" had turned out because we didn't have enough troops etc to protect that many polling places. Really, Baghdad was the main place they recorded a large turnout.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. "Only God Almighty knows the final turnout now."

Don't even try to analyze anything. In case you haven't noticed it, science and secularity are dead. Nothing can be stated or acted upon in the public realm without the imprimature of the big whatsiewhosits. Shut the fuck up and kneel before our god.

Only god knows. Don't even ask. It was good. It was important.

That people were forced to vote in order to get food vouchers is immaterial. It's all good because we say it's good.

These are dark times and only getting worse.