<< Is the first example of the use of the term "massive fraud" in a serious way in a mainstream media outlet? ... Has anyone seen the election results put this way in a similar source? >>
No. But then the Inquirer's series of articles right before the election that calmly but methodically eviscerated Bush, done explicitly to provide back-up for their endorsement of Kerry, was something I saw nowhere else in the United States, either--and that means ever, not just 2004.
I get the impression (admittedly with zero real evidence) that the Inquirer has this core group of journalists who've said, "To hell with it," have circled the filing cabinets, are going to fire away with their word processors and go down in a final blaze of glory, even if they know that right-wing gatekeepers [and/or/equal to] their publishers will eventually break in and carry their heads away on pointed sticks. Or, more frighteningly, they're still fired up by a years-ago viewing of "All the President's Men" and don't realize that their heads will be carried away on pointed sticks.
At any rate, I will be very surprised--happily so, but still very surprised--if any other mainstream US media take a similar tack. what I think is more likely is that, if the Inquirer's views get any traction, the "responsible" media will gang up and beat the shit out of them, a la the San Jose Mercury News's CIA drug connection series from a few years back.
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:38:39 -0600
>
>>Philadelphia Inquirer - November 24, 2004
>>
>>Final Tallies Minus Exit Polls = A Statistical Mystery!
>>by John Allen Paulos
>>
>>Of course, what makes these discrepancies more than a technical problem in
>>statistical methodology is that there is a much less likely, much more
>>ominous explanation for them: massive fraud. Fraud is hard to believe for
...
________________________________________________________________