Losers in denial over Bush

[emad]

Times
From Roland Watson in Washington



JOHN KERRY has preached unity and Tony Blair told the world to get over it, but some Americans simply refuse to believe that President Bush won a second term fairly.

Cyberspace is humming with tales of ballot irregularities, secret counts and missing votes, allowing conspiracy theorists to assert that Mr Bush, for the second time, “stole” the presidential election. There is the story of the Ohio county where more ballots were cast than there were registered voters. Or the Florida counties where Mr Bush’s votes were substantially larger than the number of registered Republicans. Or the electronic machines that added thousands of Republican votes, counted backwards or lost hundreds of other votes.

The complaints are not confined to the internet. Six Democratic members of Congress have written to the nonpartisan General Accountability Office demanding an urgent review into the efficiency of the touch-screen voting machines.

Ralph Nader, the independent candidate, has also asked for recounts in Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire because of “striking inconsistencies”.
More:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1355073,00.html

[tngledwebb]

1. UK Times

owned by Mr. Murdoch, but with a middle of the road to liberal/Labour history. He bought it to gain some journalistic credibility (seen the UK Sun?), and to corner market in UK. But it's a better paper in most ways than the NYT or WaPo.

[ianrs]

5. sorry, but disagree

The Times historically - well, for most of the twentieth century - was the paper of record of the Establishment, which meant mostly high Tory/sometimes socially liberal views. Not a friend to Labour. Agree that Murdoch :puke: bought it to get credibility, but establishment credibility as much as journalistic credibility. And anyway, it's a shite newspaper. I think it may have endorsed Labour in 01 or 97 - an interesting comment on the danger to Murdoch :puke: posed by Blair - but even if it did, it's still a bloody awful read.

No idea who or what this Watson creature is, but he clearly has no interest in truth or decency, so making for an excellent News International employee.

[tngledwebb]

6. I overstated the case.

Let's say that relative to many US papers it might pass as a liberal paper -look at today's Peter Brooke cartoon- and the actual writing is at a higher level. At least it isn't BushCo propoganda 24/7. But some of it obviously is.

[ianrs]

7. I don't rightly know

as am not USAer and live in UK. I imagine that many of the non-liberal papers in the States are more akin to the Daily Mail here, a truly repellent publication that sells hugely well.
Hey-ho....

But you're right, there are bits of Times that can pass for journalism, as opposed to lies. But I still think it's thin stuff. I'd rather read the broadsheet Daily Telegraph, just for "know your enemy" and laughter value.

[tngledwebb]

8. Daily Torygraph probably more liberal

than some of ours, even with Hollinger ownership.
But two advantages with UK papers- you KNOW where they stand, and there are five+ national papers. All we have is USA Today.

[Roger_Otip]

2. the times is owned by rupert murdoch

[blackspade]

3. Hey Roland...

They are not 'Tales' or 'Stories'.
They are fact.
If this guy was an actual journalist he might actually know this.

[Unstuck In Time]

4. Despite the defensive tone of the article, this is progress.

It's getting harder and harder for the media to turn a deaf ear to this story. Sure, they're being sneery and bratty about it. But the idea has been planted and is beginning to take root: Another asterisk next to George Bush's name.

Mandate, my ass. :7