MSNBC's Olbermann Indulges in Paranoia About Pro-Bush Vote Fraud --11/9/2004

1. MSNBC's Olbermann Indulges in Paranoia About Pro-Bush Vote Fraud
With "Did Your Vote Count? The Plot Thickens" as his on-screen header, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Monday night led his Countdown program with more than 15 straight minutes of paranoid and meaningless claims about voting irregularities in states won by President Bush. Olbermann contended: "There is a small but blood curdling group of reports of voting irregularities and possible fraud -- principally in Ohio and Florida." He began with how, citing "homeland security," one of Ohio's 88 counties blocked media observers from watching the vote-counting, a county whose importance he elevated: "Warren County's polls were among the last in Ohio to close, thus among the last to report and thus among the votes that clinched the state and the election for President Bush." Moving on to Florida, Olbermann recited the results in five small counties "with decided Democratic margins" which used optical scan devices and "suddenly voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Bush." In fact, all the counties Olbermann listed voted for Bush in 2000. Olbermann asked left-wing Democratic Congressman John Conyers: "Do you think that what happened...altered the outcome of the presidential election?"

2. ABC's Simpson: Bush Win Means Public "Not Bright," Rush "Scary"
ABC News correspondent Carole Simpson, who through 2003 served as the anchor of World News Tonight on Sunday and who now travels the country for ABC News to talk to high schoolers about how to consume news, lashed out at how the election results reflect the triumph of the "stupid" and how the red/blue maps match the slave versus free states. She opined at a National Press Club forum shown live Monday night on C-SPAN: "I look at the election, and I'm going, 'Well, of course our kids are not bright about these things because their parents aren't.'" She also asserted that it's "really scary" to her when she hears that students consider Rush Limbaugh to be a news source. Simpson fretted that now "affirmative action's a bad word. Liberal's a bad word. Gay is a bad word. Diversity, all these words that were perfectly fine words now are these touchstones, these trigger points, and that frightens me. I think he's going after social issues."

3. ABC: "Arch-Conservatives" Worry Gonzales Not Conservative Enough
The expected battle over Supreme Court nominees may lead to a revitalization of creative extreme ideological labeling from mainstream media reporters not satisfied with the "conservative" tag. On Monday's Good Morning America, ABC's Manuel Medrano offered a preview when he referred to how "arch-conservatives" are worried that potential Supreme Court nominee Alberto Gonzales "may not be conservative enough on hot-button issues like abortion and affirmative action."

4. Bush Win Means CBS Will Punish Those in Forged Docs Scandal?
Those at CBS News involved in the forged documents scandal "may have been rooting for a John Kerry victory," Broadcasting and Cable magazine suggested, because "the feeling in some quarters at CBS was that if Kerry triumphed, fallout from the investigation would be relatively minimal." But with the re-election of the target of their hit, "executives at CBS parent Viacom could take a harder line on the executives involved."

5. Twice as Many Saw Pro-Kerry Than Pro-Bush Tilt in Media Coverage
By 46 percent to 42 percent, those who voted on election day in 12 "battleground" states, believed "that the media's coverage of this year's presidential election was biased towards one candidate or party," a survey conducted by Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates determined. Within the 46 percent, more than twice as many, 32 percent of the total number of those polled, saw a tilt in favor of Kerry and Democrats than in favor of Bush and Republicans, 14 percent. By 30 percent to 12 percent, independents saw the bias going in Kerry's direction. Of those who saw bias, 68 percent perceived more than in past election years.

MSNBC's Olbermann Indulges in Paranoia
About Pro-Bush Vote Fraud

With "Did Your Vote Count? The Plot Thickens" as his on-screen header, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Monday night led his Countdown program with more than 15 straight minutes of paranoid and meaningless claims about voting irregularities in states won by President Bush. Olbermann contended: "There is a small but blood curdling group of reports of voting irregularities and possible fraud -- principally in Ohio and Florida." He began with how, citing "homeland security," one of Ohio's 88 counties blocked media observers from watching the vote-counting, a county whose importance he elevated: "Warren County's polls were among the last in Ohio to close, thus among the last to report and thus among the votes that clinched the state and the election for President Bush."

Olbermann asked a local Ohio reporter if the county officials "appreciate...the way they handled it has made it appear as if they were using homeland security to cover something up?" He wanted to know: "Is there any sense there in southern Ohio that the election throughout the state might have been a mess or, at worst, that it may have left the appearance of being tampered with?"

Moving on to Florida, Olbermann recited the results in five small counties "with decided Democratic margins" which used optical scan devices and "suddenly voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Bush. In Florida counties where optical scanning of paper ballots was not used, no such violent swings were reported." The total vote in all five counties doesn't add up to more than ten percent of Bush's 350,000 vote margin in the state and, in fact, all the counties Olbermann listed voted for Bush in 2000 -- so it must be a Kathleen Harris-inspired conspiracy that spans back four years.

Olbermann brought aboard left-wing Democratic Congressman John Conyers to indulge in the Congressman's claims about voting irregularities. Instead of challenging him, Olbermann cued him up: "Is it your assessment that last Tuesday's election was, to some degree, invalid, hacked, rigged, fixed, otherwise flawed, and what do you want done about the previous election as opposed to future elections?" And: "Do you think that what happened, what evidence there has been of irregularities in Ohio and Florida, altered the outcome of the presidential election?"

Though he wasn't wearing Reynolds Wrap himself, early on Olbermann conceded that the reports of voting problems ranged from ones "in which believers are also likely to be wearing hats made out of Reynolds Wrap to the other end of the spectrum in which the believers are going to the General Accounting Office and perhaps the FBI." As if making a complaint to the GAO makes you any more credible.

Olbermann teased his November 8 show: "Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? 'Additional reports every minute.' So six congressmen write demanding an immediate investigation. Did the new voting technology tamper with last week's presidential election? Why did an Ohio county lock down its vote count, claiming it was for homeland security purposes? Why did 29 heavily Democratic Florida counties, with optical ballot scanners, wind up voting heavily Republican? Full coverage ahead."

Olbermann opened the hour: "Good evening. An Associated Press poll tonight suggests that 54 percent of us Americans have been given renewed confidence about the nation's electoral system based on last week's decisive presidential election. You guys might want to put that poll back into the field again next week. Our fifth story on the Countdown tonight, there is a small but blood curdling group of reports of voting irregularities and possible fraud -- principally in Ohio and Florida. And that group of reports is moving from that end of the spectrum in which believers are also likely to be wearing hats made out of Reynolds Wrap to the other end of the spectrum in which the believers are going to the General Accounting Office and perhaps the FBI."

"What Happened in Ohio?" asked MSNBC's graphic as Olbermann asserted: "The mainstream newspaper, The Cincinnati Enquirer, reports that officials in Warren County, Ohio -- that's 20 miles northeast of Cincinnati -- locked down their administration building last Tuesday night to prevent anybody from observing the vote count. Moreover the secrecy, unique among all 88 of Ohio's counties, was attributed to concerns about potential terrorism. The newspaper reports that Warren County Emergency Services Director Frank Young had recommended the walling off of the vote count based on information received from the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. Mr. Young did not explain whether al-Qaeda might have been planning to hit Caesar Creek State Park in Waynesville or the King's Island Amusement Park.
"But after some negotiating, reporters were finally admitted to that building around midnight. They were kept in the lobby. The counting went on unobserved two floors above them. Warren County's polls were among the last in Ohio to close, thus among the last to report and thus among the votes that clinched the state and the election for President Bush. A local television news director called the homeland security explanation a, quote, 'red herring.' County Prosecutor Rachel Hertzel told the newspaper that the Warren County commissioners were, quote, 'within their rights to lock the building down, even though no other Ohio county did so, because having photographers or reporters present could have interfered with the count.' You bet, Rachel. Ohio, whose 20 electoral votes were based on a margin of two percent in the vote, has other problems tonight. The state reports 92,000 presidential votes did not count, ranging from votes improperly cast to votes improperly counted.
"And in Cuyahoga County -- that is Greater Cleveland -- the official records of 29 different voting precincts show more votes than registered voters, to a total of 93,000 extra votes in that county alone. As an example, in Fairview Park, 12 miles west of Cleveland, 13,342 voters were registered. 18,472 votes were cast.
"None of this even addresses the story we told you about last week in the town of Gahanna, outside Columbus, Ohio. There, in a district with just 800 voters, a voting machine added 3,893 votes to Mr. Bush's total.

(For an AP story on that inconsequential glitch: story.news.yahoo.com [1] )

Olbermann continued: "The problems in Ohio and equally troubling ones from Florida, which we'll get to presently, have led to a call for an investigation by the governmental watchdog, the GAO. Representative John Conyers will join me in a moment to discuss that big picture. First, back to the small picture in Warren County in Ohio. The Cincinnati Enquirer reporter who broke the story of the homeland security-inspired lockdown of the vote count there is Erica Solvig, and she joins me now....We heard the county prosecutor's opinion on this. But is it yet clear whether or not the county might have broken any laws by doing what it did?"
Erica Solvig, Cincinnati Enquirer: "No. That's still being debated by the Enquirer attorney, some media representatives in the area, and Rachel Hertzel, the county prosecutor."
Olbermann: "There's a, there's also a statement tonight from Pat South, who's the President of the Warren County Board of Commissioners, that three weeks before the election, they got a series of memos from Homeland Security. Let me quote her, the rest of her statement, directly. 'These memos were sent out statewide, not just to Warren County, and they included a lot of planning tools and resources to use for Election Day security. In a face-to-face meeting between the FBI and our Director of Emergency Services, we were informed that on a scale from 1 to 10, the tri-state area of southwest Ohio was ranked at a high 8 to a low 9 in terms of security risk. Warren County, in particular, was rated at 10.' A, does anybody know what she's talking about? And, B, do any of the Warren County commissioners appreciate that even if this was the most innocent, the most justifiable of actions, that the way they handled it has made it appear as if they were using homeland security to cover something up?"
Solvig: "Well, the Warren County commissioners again, they state that it's homeland security issues, as for their feelings, that they're just standing by the stance that it's homeland security. They did have a meeting the Thursday prior to the election and did announce that anyone who would be voting at the polls would have to enter through the front door. But they said nothing about media access being restricted...."
Olbermann: "Did they have any sense, though, did the commissioners have any sense that there has been a bad reaction to this just for the taste in people's mouths?"
Solvig: "Well, we at the Enquirer have received numerous e-mails, but the county commissioners that I have talked to, when I spoke with them last, they had said that they had not received any e-mails or any responses saying that this was a negative action. And they maintain their position that they were well within their rights."
Olbermann: "Is there any sense there in southern Ohio that the election throughout the state might have been a mess or, at worst, that it may have left the appearance of being tampered with?"
Solvig: "Well, I think that from reader feedback, some readers have that concern...."

For Solvig's November 5 story which so enthralled Olbermann: www.enquirer.com [2]

Olbermann headed south: "And the Ohio numbers are straightforward compared to Florida. Their county totals in Tuesday's election might be attributable largely to largely Democratic districts suddenly switching sides and all voting for Mr. Bush at the same time, except that the 29 counties in which that happened were among the 52 in the state that tallied their votes using paper ballots that were optically scanned by machines produced by the Diebold Corporation, the Sequoia Company or Election Systems and Software."
With the numbers on screen, Olbermann recited some figures: "All this data here is from the office of Florida's secretary of state. Baker County, Florida, on the Georgia border, for instance: 69 percent of voters registered Democrats, 24 percent Republicans. Yet President Bush got 7,738 votes, and Senator Kerry just 2,180. In Holmes County, in the Panhandle, seven Democrats for every two Republicans in the district. Bush beat Kerry 6,410 to 1,810. In Dixie County, 77.5 percent registered Democrats. Bush, 4,433. Kerry, 1,959. Lafayette County, 83 percent Democratic, Bush, 2,460. Kerry, 845. In Liberty County, Bristol, Florida, 88 percent of registered voters there are Democrat, 8 percent Republican. Bush, 1,927. Kerry, 1,070.

But as the MRC's Brad Wilmouth tracked down, all the counties listed by Olbermann voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and so the 2004 vote in those counties matches past behavior and so should have been expected. To access the 2000 presidential vote in Florida by county: election.dos.state.fl.us [3]

Olbermann wouldn't let go: "Five examples in 29 counties with decided Democratic margins that suddenly voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Bush. In Florida counties where optical scanning of paper ballots was not used, no such violent swings were reported. Counties with heavy Democratic registration voted Democratic, counties with heavy Republican registration voted Republican. And then there's one wild card to add to the Florida mixture. While the state voted for Mr. Bush and 29 Democratic counties became Republican strongholds, one extremely liberal state ballot proposition passed overwhelmingly. A constitutional amendment raising Florida's minimum wage by a dollar an hour -- 71 percent of Florida voters approved that."

Which just means people in poorer, more rural counties are socially conservative while also being economically liberal and so liked President Bush and wanted to vote more money for themselves.

Olbermann even took seriously a complaint from someone who got one percent: "There's also late news tonight of a demand for a hand recount by one of the presidential candidates rejected in New Hampshire, requested by Ralph Nader. The Nader-Camejo campaign wrote to the secretary of state in Concord noting, quote, 'Reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the Acuvote Diebold machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire.' Nader suggested the irregularities favored Mr. Bush by 5 to 15 percent. The secretary of state of New Hampshire said the request was in good order but Nader failed to include the check for the filing fee for a recount."

Olbermann wrapped up with a left-wing Congressman: "And while losing Florida, a congressional candidate reportedly says he has evidence of tampering with the results of those optical scans and is headed to the FBI with it. Six House winners from last week have turned instead to the GAO, the General Accounting Office. John Conyers of Michigan, Jerrold Nadler of New York, and Robert Wexler of Florida having written to the GAO to 'immediately undertake an investigation into the efficacy of voting machines and new technologies used in the 2004 election,' today added three other Representatives to their fold -- Rush Holt of New Jersey, Robert Scott of Virginia, and Melvin Watt of North Carolina.
"And added further evidence of improprieties in last Tuesday's vote, including quoting them here, 'Poll workers in Broward County, Florida, expressed concern that boxes of absentee ballots remained uncounted in the central storage facilities and were promptly escorted out of the supervisor's office by security after raising that concern. Joining us now, the first signatory on both letters, Rep. John Conyers, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman Conyers, thank you for your time tonight."
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): "Well, I'm glad you're investigating this because it's very central to the whole idea that everybody's vote counts. And these irregularities are sufficient in number, and more and more members are joining me every day on this...."
Olbermann: "You can choose your terminology, sir, I wouldn't put it, especially after what you've just said, I wouldn't put any words in your mouth, but is it your assessment that last Tuesday's election was, to some degree, invalid, hacked, rigged, fixed, otherwise flawed, and what do you want done about the previous election as opposed to future elections?"
Conyers: "Well, future elections are going to be improved by us reviewing some of these miscues and careful problems that were raised by the media. I'm congratulating many of the news sources, the Web pages, people that called in. Our offices continue even now to get calls about irregularities that have to be investigated by the GAO, and I think it will probably lead to congressional hearings in the committee on the Judiciary."
Olbermann: "Let me ask you bluntly, sir, do you think that what happened, what evidence there has been of irregularities in Ohio and Florida, altered the outcome of the presidential election?"
Conyers: "I can't tell you yes or no because I haven't had the investigation yet...."
Olbermann: "If you get your investigation, whether it's from the GAO or if you can get it somehow started institutionally within Congress, and there does turn out to be significant evidence or even proof of genuine tampering in either or both of these states or many others that we haven't even gotten into, what do we do then?"
Conyers: "Well, first of all, these are violations, if they turn out to be deliberate and intended, that they're violations of the federal law. And there will be prosecutions that follow from it. What we're additionally looking for are ways to improve the system...."
Olbermann: "Last question, sir. Would you and your five colleagues be doing this if John Kerry had won this election and the accusations were flowing in that, intentionally or otherwise, it was the Democrats who might have had thumbs on the scales against Mr. Bush?"
Conyers: "Well, you know, this doesn't have anything to do with partisanship. We were the ones that, the Democrats were the victims of 2000. We're trying to make the process work for everybody. So it's not a matter of going after this because of the Republicans are involved in much of the questions that have been raised by the complaints that we have received."
Olbermann: "Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the author, along with five of his colleagues in the House, of that letter to the comptroller general seeking an investigation into the technological failures in last Tuesday's election. As you continue your reporting on this, so shall we. Thank you for your time, sir."
Conyers: "You're more than welcome."
Olbermann: "And, by the way, that Associated Press poll with which we began which asked if the results of the election made you feel more confident or less confident in the fairness of this country's electoral system -- 39 percent said less confident."

After 16 minutes of Olbermann's paranoid rantings I bet MSNBC viewers have less confidence in the news media.

ABC's Simpson: Bush Win Means Public
"Not Bright," Rush "Scary"

ABC News correspondent Carole Simpson, who through 2003 served as the anchor of World News Tonight on Sunday and who now travels the country for ABC News to talk to high schoolers about how to consume news, lashed out at how the election results reflect the triumph of the "stupid" and how the red/blue maps match the slave versus free states. She opined at a National Press Club forum shown live Monday night on C-SPAN: "I look at the election, and I'm going, 'Well, of course our kids are not bright about these things because their parents aren't.'" She also asserted that it's "really scary" to her when she hears that students consider Rush Limbaugh to be a news source. Simpson fretted that now "affirmative action's a bad word. Liberal's a bad word. Gay is a bad word. Diversity, all these words that were perfectly fine words now are these touchstones, these trigger points, and that frightens me. I think he's going after social issues."

Simpson appeared on a November 8 panel organized by the Smithsonian Associates and the Freedom Forum's Newseum to review press coverage of the campaign. Also on the panel: Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, NPR's Juan Williams, the Washington Post's David Broder and columnist Pat Buchanan. Tipped by the MRC's Tim Graham, the MRC's Brad Wilmouth took down a couple of Simpson's rants:

-- Simpson recounted her encounters with high schoolers: "Then I'm going, 'Oh, my God, are children going to grow up stupid?' And I don't say that to them, but when I hear some of their answers to questions, I'm like, they still think that Saddam Hussein blew up the World Trade Center. And I'm telling you, I've been to cities Northeast, South, Midwest, far West, Pacific Northwest, I've been all over the country, and I'm like, 'Oh, my God, how could they miss this?' And then I look at the election, and I'm going, 'Well, of course our kids are not bright about these things because their parents aren't. And you look at the studies that show 70 percent of the people of America still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the World Trade Center, and that's why we're at war, and I'm like, 'Oh, my God. Nobody is looking at news.' The children are saying, 'Well, I hear Rush Limbaugh,' and I said, 'That's not the news.' And they go, 'But he's talking about news things.' Okay, that's really scary when I hear them say that they think they're getting the news, they can't make the separation between the New York Times and ABC News and NPR and the talk shows Hannity and Colmes or Bill O'Reilly. It's all the same to them. That's all the news, Entertainment Tonight, it's all the news. So it's been a very frightening thing to me. I am scared. I am going to admit to you that I'm scared."

-- In reaction to comments from Pat Buchanan: "When you tell me, 'Let the states decide,' that scares me, okay? I got a little map here [holding sheet of paper] of pre-Civil War free versus slave states. I wish you could see it in color and large. But if you look at it, the red states are all down in the South, and you have the Nebraska Territories, the New Mexico Territories, and the Kansas Territories. But the Pacific Northwest and California were not slave states. The Northeast was not. It looks like the map of 2004.
"And when you say, 'Let's let the states decide,' I remember what the states decided when they had slavery. And the kinds of things that concern me is despite what the President says about tax reform and going after entitlement programs, I think they're going quickly after social programs despite what he said. I think we're going to get a rollback on all kinds of things. Affirmative action's a bad word. Liberal's a bad word. Gay is a bad word. Diversity, all these words that were perfectly fine words now are these touchstones, these trigger points, and that frightens me. I think he's going after social issues."

In a May 13 Boston Globe story about her new job for ABC, Simpson rued: "'It isn't the ABC News it was when I started,' she said. 'We've moved away from stories about poor people, people who are powerless,' she said. 'The focus groups have indicated that the public wants medical and business news.'" See: www.boston.com [4]

Simpson earned the MRC's "Quote of the Year" in 1999 for this self-aggrandizing exchange with President Bill Clinton as the two stood in an Arkansas tomato factory:

Simpson to Clinton: "You've got the big plane, you've got the big house, you've got the cars, the protection. Aren't you going to suffer great post-partum depression after you leave office?....I have to bask in this moment, for a moment, because I am here talking to the most powerful man on the planet, who was a poor boy from Arkansas-"
Clinton, cutting her off: "A place like this."
Simpson: "Place like this. I am an African-American woman, grew up working class on the south side of Chicago, and this is a pretty special moment for me to be here talking to you. How does it feel talking to me? That I made it, too, when people said I wouldn't be able to?"

For a RealPlayer clip from the November 7, 1999 World News Tonight/Sunday, go to: www.mediaresearch.org [5]

ABC: "Arch-Conservatives" Worry Gonzales
Not Conservative Enough

The expected battle over Supreme Court nominees may lead to a revitalization of creative extreme ideological labeling from mainstream media reporters not satisfied with the "conservative" tag. On Monday's Good Morning America, ABC's Manuel Medrano offered a preview when he referred to how "arch-conservatives" are worried that potential Supreme Court nominee Alberto Gonzales "may not be conservative enough on hot-button issues like abortion and affirmative action."

On the November 8 GMA, the MRC's Megan McCormack observed, Medrano previewed who may be nominated to replace the ailing William Rehnquist: "A strong contender is the President's White House counsel and confidante, Alberto Gonzales, who'd be the Court's first Hispanic member. Arch-conservatives worry that Gonzales may not be conservative enough on hot-button issues like abortion and affirmative action."
James Dobson: "I imagine he'd generate quite a bit of steam if he would appoint Judge Gonzales. We just don't see him as the kind of Supreme Court justice that's going to be needed."
Medrano: "But a more conservative jurist will be difficult to get confirmed. Although Republicans are the majority in the Senate, they still lack the votes to overcome a filibuster by Democrats. Now to get through this very difficult confirmation process, a more possible choice would be a centrist, someone that both the right and the left can live with."

Bush Win Means CBS Will Punish Those
in Forged Docs Scandal?

Those at CBS News involved in the forged documents scandal "may have been rooting for a John Kerry victory," Broadcasting and Cable magazine suggested, because "the feeling in some quarters at CBS was that if Kerry triumphed, fallout from the investigation would be relatively minimal." But with the re-election of the target of their hit, "executives at CBS parent Viacom could take a harder line on the executives involved."

In its daily e-mail on Monday, Broadcasting and Cable distributed a short article, "Sweating Bush II at CBS." An excerpt from the un-bylined item dated November 8 at 10:44am EST:

Players involved in the notorious 60 Minutes II story, reported by Dan Rather, which employed dubious documents regarding President Bush's National Guard service, may have been rooting for a John Kerry victory....

Pre-election, the feeling in some quarters at CBS was that if Kerry triumphed, fallout from the investigation would be relatively minimal. The controversial piece's producer, Mary Mapes, would likely be suspended or fired, but a long list of others up the chain of command -- from 60 Minutes II executive producer Josh Howard, to Rather and all the way up to news division President Andrew Heyward -- would escape more or less unscathed.

But now, faced with four more years of President Bush, executives at CBS parent Viacom could take a harder line on the executives involved.

END of Excerpt

The magazine's home page: www.broadcastingcable.com [6]

Twice as Many Saw Pro-Kerry Than Pro-Bush
Tilt in Media Coverage

By 46 percent to 42 percent, those who voted on election day in 12 "battleground" states, believed "that the media's coverage of this year's presidential election was biased towards one candidate or party," a survey conducted by Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates determined. Within the 46 percent, more than twice as many, 32 percent of the total number of those polled, saw a tilt in favor of Kerry and Democrats than in favor of Bush and Republicans, 14 percent. By 30 percent to 12 percent, independents saw the bias going in Kerry's direction. Of those who saw bias, 68 percent perceived more than in past election years.

The poll of 1,000 people who voted that day was conducted on November 2. The survey focused on those in these twelve states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Asked, "Generally speaking, would you say that the media's coverage of this year's Presidential election was biased towards one candidate or party or was it unbiased?," the results:

Biased:
Overall: 46% (In favor of Bush/GOP: 14%; in favor of Kerry/Democrats: 32%)

Republicans: 63% (In favor of Bush/GOP: 4%; in favor of Kerry/Democrats: 58%)

Democrats: 32% (In favor of Bush/GOP: 25%; in favor of Kerry/Democrats: 7%)

Independents: 42% (In favor of Bush/GOP: 12%; in favor of Kerry/Democrats: 30%)

For a PDF with the results released on November 5: www.fabmac.com [7]

The Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll matches two earlier ones. As recounted in the November 1 CyberAlert:
Two polls released last week found that more people perceive the media tilting coverage in favor of Democrat John Kerry than in favor of Republican President George W. Bush. Gallup determined that 35 percent think coverage has tilted toward Kerry compared to just 16 percent who said it favored Bush. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press discovered that "half of voters (50 percent) say most newspaper and TV reporters would prefer to see John Kerry win the election, compared with just 22 percent who think that most journalists are pulling for George Bush." While 27 percent described Kerry coverage as "unfair," 37 percent labeled Bush coverage as "unfair." Pew also learned that "voters who get most of their election news from CNN favor Kerry over Bush, by 67 percent-26 percent." For details: www.mediaresearch.org [8]

-- Brent Baker [9]