h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The article is obviously biased.

I think the lead in paragraph would be a bit less shocking if you used the rather than .

I really haven't been following the story for a while. I'd like to see this article by USA Today stating that Bush actually lost Florida. I recall hearing somethig on NPR that another news organization was getting ready to announce their findings of the ballot review in September. I haven't heard what the reuslt was.

Hi
I've got a few issues with this article:-

1) Like TBTPM, I think it is politically biased. Maybe it's just me, but I read implications of deliberate machinations by Bush supporters to rig the election by making it difficult for illiterate people to cast a vote properly. A balanced view of the election might ask why stoopid people would predominately vote for Gore.

2) The article mentions that opinion polls improved for Gore after he kissed his wife. This illustrates a shallowness within the US
Electorate and the effect of this on the overall outcome could be discussed.

3) The fact that the press can manipulate public opinion is one of the most depressing truths I know. It speaks more about the gullibility of the readership than the cynicism of the media.

4) Is it bordering on the libelous?

5) The ballot review showed that Bush won. This should be mentioned.

I think that the article is biased, as well.
The language you used suggested bias. You have a few points, though.
The media did mess up royally.
The part about disenfranchised voters needs to be backed up with verifiable facts. The article is interesting, but the evidence that you have presented in it seems to lead the reader to agree with an opinion, not to form one of his own.
I don't think that anyone who was interested in this election could write a completely unbiased article on it; however, this one seems to be more opinion than information.

As an American, I have heard all of this thousands and thousands of times! But it is informative for our trans-Atlantic brothers. I enjoyed reading it, even if my political leanings may differ from yours. I did notice but one typo: Under the "The Electoral College" section, the word "electorat" is spelled "electorate."
Nice to see American politics here.

And nice to see that someone who does not necessarily agree with the politics has something positive to say. I agree that it is slightly 'lop-sided' but also found it informative and potentially editable.

Still waiting to see what can be done to balance it up a bit.

Spiff

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'U.S. Presidential Election 2000'.


This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review Forum because your entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

You can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!

* Sticks his hands up into the air *

Ok folks, for all those who think this articles still biaised, you can now blame me for picking it - I liked it and I'm sticking to my opinion so


Congratulations anyway

Whisky

Whisky -

I liked this too, PC or not.

Nice one Badtz!

Seeya
Spiff

Each to his own.

If someone had written about the UK election in this way, I doubt it would have been recommended. I'm no fan of Dubbya, but this article leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth.

But hey! What fun would it be if we agreed all the time?

Whiskey, you're a scallywag

Geoff

Unbelieveable.

I think there are some items that are informative. The article is still biased and I am not convinced of some of the facts as reported.

I had never heard of any results that showed that Gore may have won Florida. The entry mentions a USA Today article, but I haven't been able to find it. I have requested proof of that claim. What I have found is a series by USA Today articles that confirms the results of the Florida election. You can link to these articles here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A568226.

The artilces mention some papers that claim that Gore would have won, but they're not published by USA Today, and their claims seem to be contrived.

I do appreciate having the link to a picture of the butterfly ballot. It shows how simple it is to use it. Although, the text of the entry seems to indicate that its complicated.

I think there's a a lot of value in this article, but the parts that try to cast doubt on the actual count are inaccurate. I find it diffcult to believe that this will be included in the edited guide as written.

Agreed

I haven't looked at this thread for a while, but I suddenly feel the need to defend myself here. This entry originated as a research paper for my composition class, and I can assure you that all of the facts are exactly that -- facts. If anyone has questions I could probably root up my works cited page, although I don't know how much of the information is still available.

Those of you saying it's biased are right, however I did use facts to support all of my claims, so I don't see a problem...as long as the title is changed when it goes in the edited guide. I think the idea was to add "from the point of view of a democrat" or some such.

Thanks for the people who've defended me!

-badtz_maru007

Yes I want to see the USA Today article that you said shows a definitive recount in favor of Gore. I posted a link to what I saw on USA Today, and it says something quite different.

I'm still trying to find a link to the USA Today article that I used, but I've found a link to s story that refers to it. Still working on the actual story....here's the link:

[url removed by moderator]

I tried searching USA Today's archives, but I can't find it. Here's that entry from my bibliography though:

Bell, Steve. “The Media and Politics: It’s More Than the News.” USA Today Mar. 2001: 10-13.

Maybe it only appeared on the internet and that's why it isn't showing up. I'm not sure. Anyway, you're welcome to try to find it.

-badtz_maru007

I went and read the opinion piece by Nichols. Luckily, that URL hasn't been removed yet. He was overstating what could actually be determined.

The USA Today series from June seems to indicate that it's difficult to know what the actual count was. They had different winners depending on the standard that was used.

In the article, "Florida voter errors cost Gore the election," USA Today researchers found that Bush would have one if Gore got the recounts in the four counties that he requested. The results of recounts varied based on different standards that might have been used. Under the most widely used standard Bush still won, but with different interpretations they got different results.

One of the conclusions that they make was that the majority of Florida voters probably intended to vote for Gore. Which means that he lost, because more of his voters were too stupid to vote properly.

The stories go on to analyze possible reasons for possible voting errors.

This election has been attacked with many bogus claims of corruption. My personal favourites are the roadblocks set up to stop black people from reaching the polls.

Then there were the questionable judicial decisions. First there was the absurd decision by the Florida Supreme Court to keep the count going, and the almost as absurd decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that stopped it.

No doubt about it, the election was a mess. When it comes down to it, Gore conceded, and Bush is president.

Yes, you make some good points. However...regardless of what you think, the article is on the front page of the guide today! Yay! I'm so excited!

-badtz_maru007

I withdraw and apologize for everything I have said on this thread. Please check out the US Commission for Civil Rights and read their report on the disgraceful removal of thousands of people from Florida's electoral register, in an exercise instigated by G.W. Bush's campaign chairperson in her alternate guise as Florida's Secretary of state for Elections.

www.usccr.gov

And very illuminating it is, too.

Isn't it just?
I got a posting modded the other day when I called Bush some unsavoury names. It was re-instated after I referred the moderators to this report.