Ohio? no story!
Editor & Publisher Online - June 12, 2006
Some Ohio Editors and Reporters Criticize ‘Rolling Stone’ Story on
2004 Alleged Vote Fraud
NEW YORK Did the press really miss the story in the 2004 presidential
election of massive voter fraud and conspiracies to keep millions
from casting ballots that a recent controversial piece in Rolling
Stone has alleged? As the article’s author, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,
believes, did news outlets, both nationally and in the battleground
state of Ohio, engage in a “media blackout” that ignored what he
claims are “deeply troubling” aspects of the election that returned
George W. Bush to the White House?
Bob Herbert added fuel to the fire on Monday in claiming in his New
York Times column that, after the Rolling Stone report, “the
integrity of the election process needs to be more fiercely defended
in the face of outrageous Republican assaults. Democrats, the media,
and ordinary voters need to fight back.”
But for many in Ohio who covered the presidential race, which was not
decided until the following morning after John Kerry gave up any
attempt at challenging the Ohio results, the Rolling Stone
allegations are unfounded.
“We looked at the Rolling Stone piece and we didn’t see anything new
in there,” says Eva Parziale, Associated Press Ohio bureau chief, who
held that post in 2004 when the election occurred. “They were things
we already reported on and issues we did not see to have substance.”
Carl Weiser, government and public affairs editor for the Cincinnati
Enquirer, agreed. “I read it and nothing in there was really new,” he
said. “The folks who know Ohio elections best checked into it and
found there was no conspiracy.”
But that hasn’t stopped the Kennedy piece from raising interest among
others in the newspaper world, particularly on the editorial page,
even before the Herbert column.
“In the days since Rolling Stone magazine published a long piece that
accused Republicans of widespread and intentional cheating that
affected the outcome of the last presidential election, the silence
in America’s establishment media has been deafening,” Ken Bunting,
associate publisher of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and a former
editor of the paper, wrote Friday. “In terms of bad news judgment,
this could turn out to be the 2006 equivalent of the infamous
‘Downing Street memo,’ the London Times story that was initially
greeted by the U.S. Media with a collective yawn.”
Kennedy’s article, which is heavily footnoted on the magazine’s web
site, draws much of its sourcing from the very newspapers in Ohio and
nationally it appears to criticize. The Cincinnati Enquirer, The
Blade of Toledo and the Columbus Dispatch, as well as the Times and
The Washington Post, appear frequently throughout his long list of
background notes.
The piece declares that incidents ranging from broken voting machines
in New Mexico to long lines in Ohio to millions of overseas voters
not receiving ballots were not given the national media inquiries
they deserved. Kennedy writes that “the national media, with few
exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The
Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as
‘conspiracy theories,’ and The New York Times declared that ‘there is
no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale’.”
Some of those on the 2004 election beat say Kennedy’s allegations
were dismissed because in many cases they were found to have little
or no basis, or no proof of impacting the election.
Joe Hallett, a longtime political reporter and columnist at the
Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch and previously the Plain Dealer, took his
own shot at Kennedy’s theories in a Sunday column. He declared that
“Democrats still haven’t met the burden of proof” that the election
was stolen. He also urged readers to look at a lengthy follow-up
story in Salon.com by Farhad Manjoo, which point-by-point countered a
number of Kennedy’s arguments.
Manjoo, Hallett writes, “spent a year exhaustively studying the Ohio
election rather than, a la Kennedy, dipping his toe into it 19 months
later. Writes Manjoo, ‘If you do read Kennedy’s article, be prepared
to machete your way through numerous errors of interpretation and his
deliberate omission of key bits of data.’”
Of course, others have now critiqued Manjoo’s findings online.
Doug Clifton, editor of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, said he had
not read the Rolling Stone piece, but stressed that all of the
arguments raised since the election have been properly reviewed. “We
tracked down every allegation and we did as much checking as you can
check,” he said. “In the end, there were some problems, but they were
not of the magnitude that would have made any difference.”
Clifton also said any accusation that Ohio news outlets would
purposely seek to hide a story about voter manipulation is “ludicrous
on its face….These post-mortems seem to suggest that the press
wants to supress a story on electoral fraud,” he said. “It is sort of
frustrating to keep hearing that.”
Weiser of the Enquirer adds that Kennedy’s obvious Democratic
leanings do not help the validity of his story. “If a major
Republican was saying this, I might be paying more attention to it,”
he says.
“It was looked at quite a bit at the time,” Washington Post veteran
political reporter Dan Balz said Monday about the 2004 election. “The
[ Democratic National Committee] did a study and it concluded that
there were irregularities, that there were not enough machines in
some places and some confusion about ballots, but the Ohio newspapers
seem to have investigated and did not conclude that this was
necessarily partisan-inspired.”
But Herbert wrote on Monday: “Kerry almost certainly would have won
Ohio if all of his votes had been counted, and if all of the eligible
voters who tried to vote for him had been allowed to cast their
ballots….No one has been able to prove that the election in Ohio
was hijacked. But whenever it is closely scrutinized, the range of
problems and dirty tricks that come to light is shocking. What’s not
shocking, of course, is that every glitch and every foul-up in Ohio,
every arbitrary new rule and regulation, somehow favored Bush.”
–Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P.