Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Once Bitten, Twice Tempted, but No Call in Wee Hours(FNC, NBC backstage)
Nytimes ^ | 11/04/04 | JACQUES STEINBERG and DAVID CARR

Posted on 11/04/2004 4:54:54 PM PST by Pikamax

THE NETWORKS Once Bitten, Twice Tempted, but No Call in Wee Hours By JACQUES STEINBERG and DAVID CARR

t was 2:16 on Wednesday morning when Michael Barone, an analyst for Fox News Channel, wheeled around in his chair and faced the four people charged with calling the presidential race on behalf of the network.

"I just got some spin from Rove on New Mexico,'' Mr. Barone said.

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, was urging the network to call that state in the president's favor. New Mexico's five electoral votes would have pushed Mr. Bush over the top, and would have made Fox News the first network to name a winner.

The response from John Moody, senior vice president news-editorial for Fox News and the ultimate arbiter, came swiftly. "Not yet,'' Mr. Moody said.

And so no more crucial state calls would come on this election night at Fox, or at any other broadcast or cable news network. A night that began in near unanimity, born of changes made after the 2000 election night fiasco and of early data from surveys of voters leaving the polls that showed the president headed for defeat, would end in the equivalent of a hung jury, even though all the networks were using essentially the same raw materials of voter surveys and raw vote counts.

By 1 a.m. Wednesday, Fox, NBC and MSNBC had all given Ohio to Mr. Bush, assuring him of at least a tie, but had still declined to call the election. Meanwhile, CBS, ABC and CNN kept Ohio out of the Bush column, giving Senator John Kerry's camp some ultimately misplaced hope that its candidate might yet pull out the victory.

It was the starkest divide among the networks on a long election night that occasionally bucked the conventional wisdom. Here was Fox, for example, so often described - in liberal Web logs and elsewhere - as a broadcast annex of the White House, refusing an opportunity to be the first network to declare the president's re-election. Similarly, CBS News, which has been pounded by the right since it broadcast a flawed segment about President Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service, was more aggressive than the other networks in calling some states for the president, at least in the early evening.

The skittishness of some of the other networks to make early calls, particularly on states assumed to be in the president's column and that ended up there, was rooted in frustration with variations between the voter surveys and the vote tallies. Those concerns were only heightened as news executives worried that a bad call would surely invite comparisons to the 2000 election, when each network bungled its call on Florida.

Still, it was on the question of how to analyze the results from Ohio that the differences among the network "decision desks'' became most apparent.

Fox News, which was the first to call Ohio for President Bush, at 12:40 a.m., did so with relative speed. Huddled around folding tables in a makeshift studio, Mr. Moody and three consultants examined Mr. Bush's lead of approximately 130,000 votes in the state and concluded that it would be virtually impossible for his Democratic opponent to catch up. They based their analysis on the so-called provisional ballots that remained to be counted - to win Ohio, Mr. Kerry would have had to win an overwhelming majority - and on the precincts that had yet to report results, including Republican-leaning Cincinnati.

"We agree,'' said John Gorman, the president of Opinion Dynamics, the network's outside polling unit. "Ohio, Bush.''

Less than 20 minutes later, NBC news officials would reach the same conclusion for roughly the same reasons.

"Our models told us when it was safe to call a state,'' said Allison Gollust, an NBC spokeswoman.

"It didn't matter what other people were saying,'' Ms. Gollust added. "And of course, as it turned out, we were right.''

That is not to say CBS was not tempted to make such a call. At virtually the same moment Fox's Mr. Moody gave the go-ahead, CBS informed its affiliates to stand by for a big announcement. But the network's analysts soon dashed the control room's optimism, arguing that the so-called provisional ballots that Fox had discounted in Ohio rendered Ohio a tossup.

Dan Rather, the CBS anchor, minced no words in explaining the noncall to his audience at 1:30 a.m.

"Having been embarrassed about the Florida calls in 2000, we said that we would rather be last than wrong.''

On Wednesday afternoon, Andrew Heyward, the president of CBS News, expressed no regret at the network's hesitation.

"Nobody wanted to be in a position of declaring a winner before the candidates agreed to it,'' Mr. Heyward said.

"You notice,'' he added, "that those other networks didn't project a single other state that night - they stayed stuck on 269 - because they knew what we knew: that the election was not going to be decided that night.''

For Fox News analysts, the temptation to call the election outright for Mr. Bush surfaced at 1:50 a.m., nearly a half-hour before Mr. Rove's call to Mr. Barone. A graduate student assisting Fox concluded that Mr. Bush had probably won New Mexico.

But Mr. Moody, the senior vice president, and Mr. Gorman, the pollster, urged caution, pointing to the incongruously low voter turnout and questions over the number of absentee ballots.

Mr. Gorman said on Wednesday afternoon that the pressure of potentially calling the race for the president had not influenced the decision.

"We still can't make the case for New Mexico,'' Mr. Gorman said. "It's razor thin.''

Bill Carter and Randy Kennedy contributed reporting for this article.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bushvictory; electionday
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: Pikamax

Well, the MSM sure didn't mind calling Wisconsin for the Rats, but now it looks like it may go to Bush on the absentees.


21 posted on 11/04/2004 5:17:34 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
Can you imagine the grief that Brokejaw took for calling Ohio for Bush.

My guess is that his head is still hurting.

22 posted on 11/04/2004 5:21:59 PM PST by OldFriend (PRAY FOR POWERS EQUAL TO THE TASKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
"when the heck is someone going to call Iowa?"

Have they fixed the vote counting machine yet? Have the workers recovered from their late night yet? What a load of cr@p!
23 posted on 11/04/2004 5:22:28 PM PST by Max Combined (I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

For 2008, FreeRepublic out to have our own say in calling the election. When the old media refuses to call it, we can.


24 posted on 11/04/2004 5:25:19 PM PST by Marak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
What will probably happen next presidential election is that no one will trust the media to call anything at anytime. I predict one of two things....folks will either just not tune in and go to bed or they will go on the internet and watch the true counts coming in from their own states and others.

The media just keeps getting more and more irrelevant.
25 posted on 11/04/2004 5:28:59 PM PST by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Marak

they hav estill failed to call NM and IA in most case. IA in all cases. Why I do not know....


26 posted on 11/04/2004 5:29:29 PM PST by NYURepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

I prefer UOM (Useless Old Media).


27 posted on 11/04/2004 5:29:39 PM PST by i_dont_chat (Texan and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NetSurfer

And that's exactly what they did in 2000...as they called close states for Gore immeidately, while calling overwhelming Bush states later in the evening. Even in this election, they held off on calling Bush wins later supposedly because they were too close to call. Yet, when the final tallies were in, these states went overwhelming for Bush.


28 posted on 11/04/2004 5:33:45 PM PST by cwb (Defeat after defeat, Democrats are still living in denial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Dear mediots;

The problems of calling a state too early are only relevant while the polls are still open. After that, scoop journalism should rule the rest of your reports. By the time you finally did your jobs, anyone with two eyes and a computer had the news hours before. Thanks for nothing.
29 posted on 11/04/2004 5:35:33 PM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult (This space for rant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservababe

I keep wondering if someday the desire to make a profit and not go out of business might cause an MSM network to quit being a Democratic Party auxiliary and look seriously at the Fox model, but so far it hasn't happened. They just sit there watching their audience slowly disappear.


30 posted on 11/04/2004 5:41:07 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak
I think that, by state law, they won't start considering the provisional ballots until ten days after the election.

I'm not sure of this, but I speculate this is for the following reason: Some people show up to vote on election day, and the records at the precinct indicate the voter had earlier requested an absentee ballot. The voter states that they never received the absentee ballot, or lost it. They are then given the chance to cast a provisional ballot. The elections office waits until ten days after the election to ensure that all the absentee ballots have arrived by mail. They then check (among other things) to see whether they have received a duplicate absentee ballot from someone who cast a provisional ballot. If there is a duplicate, then the provisional ballot is voided, and the absentee ballot counted. Make sense?

31 posted on 11/04/2004 5:41:38 PM PST by jpthomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jpthomas

Yes...thanks for the info.


32 posted on 11/04/2004 5:45:00 PM PST by mystery-ak (This military thanks America for re-electing our CinC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
What a pile of horsehockey. New Mexico wasn't the issue at all. In fact New Mexico wasn't called until Wednesday afternoon. The issue was NEVADA. CBS, ABC, and CNN had called Nevada, but not Ohio. Fox and NBC called Ohio but not Nevada. All five conspired to keep from officially declaring Bush the winner prior to a concession from Kerry. They applied one set of standards to states declared prior to the Electoral College vote for Bush going over 269 and a second standard to the last few remaining states. The question is whether they would have provided the same "service" to Bush if the positions had been switched. I tend to doubt it.
33 posted on 11/04/2004 5:49:49 PM PST by PMCarey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Dan Rather, the CBS anchor, minced no words in explaining the noncall to his audience at 1:30 a.m. "Having been embarrassed about the Florida calls in 2000, we said that we would rather be last than wrong."

I challenge you to find a more nonsensical comment in this years media election cycle.

34 posted on 11/04/2004 6:06:50 PM PST by Founding Father
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PMCarey
What a pile of horsehockey. New Mexico wasn't the issue at all. In fact New Mexico wasn't called until Wednesday afternoon. The issue was NEVADA. CBS, ABC, and CNN had called Nevada, but not Ohio. Fox and NBC called Ohio but not Nevada. All five conspired to keep from officially declaring Bush the winner prior to a concession from Kerry. They applied one set of standards to states declared prior to the Electoral College vote for Bush going over 269 and a second standard to the last few remaining states. The question is whether they would have provided the same "service" to Bush if the positions had been switched. I tend to doubt it.

Thank you. You saved me having to write this all out. You are 100% correct.

I was up until 3:00 AM Pacific and I watched it all. In one sense it was pathetic. But in the end it was actually comical. The MSM (not including FOX) was apparently thinking that they could still somehow control the outcome. As to FOX - I have no idea what was going through their heads. They missed a great opportunity to show up the alphabet networks.

35 posted on 11/04/2004 6:19:06 PM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc

Yes it all turned out ok and since they would not call it, Andrew Card called it. Now the networks will not be required to make the decision.


36 posted on 11/04/2004 6:45:38 PM PST by ClancyJ (Middle America is what makes America - not the Liberal "elitists" and the Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson