Fusebox said:
Debunked? Which part/s?
Sorry I missed that, can you show me where? Ta.
:: Sigh ::
Do I have to write another long post?
First I'll link to the article that has already been given, although I assume that you are implying that the link given does not do an good enough job of debunking these points. But for the sake of repetition -
Deceits Debunked
Let me begin by saying that I think its very kind of Kopel to include Moore's responses, but unfrotunately, as demonstrated with the first point, Kopel misses what the point of the links provided in the response are getting at/prove.
So... shall I demonstrate what is, in most cases, inherently wrong with these "deciets"?
David Kopel said:
2000 Election Night
Deceits 1-2
Fahrenheit 9/11 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown Al Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The conspicuous sign on stage reads "Florida Victory." Moore creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida. Moore's voiceover claims, "And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy, like a miracle had taken place." The verb tense of past perfect ("had taken") furthers the impression that the election has been completed.
Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day, before polls had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election day, but went home to Tennessee to await the results. The "Florida Victory" sign reflected Gores hopes, not any actual election results. ("Gore Campaigns Into Election Day," Associated Press, Nov. 7, 2000.)
This written before the movie was readily available to go back and forth, and could just be a misinterpretation on Kopel's part. However, if you watch the film, what Moore is trying to do is open with the idea that the last for years was all a dream. That Bush did not win Florida and therefore the presidency. The use of past tense is because he is talking from the our current time, and is believe that this is all a dream and he has awoken to a Gore victory. This is not misleading, he comes right out and says what he is doing with the footage. Also, I can't over look the irony of this footage. Which is another reason why I think it was used. I mean, when I first saw this in the theaters, I was was laughing already at this point.
Anyways, at best this scene is only for comical effect and really has no weight on the film, despite Kopel taking the scene in a literal way and assuming that the rest of us would somehow think that this footage meant Gore had really won Florida. It is meant as a comedic device, as it's ironic and sets up what he is about to show us: The coverage of the election night and how Gore was orginally called for Florida and then Bush was called. I don't see the problem with the use of this footage, perhaps someone could explain why this is so damning?
David Kopel said:
The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy
.All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"
We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."
Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.
In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the eveningbefore polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.
I agree with the facts given here. It is true Moore never shows FNC calling Florida for Gore. However, Kopel makes the point that Moore playing the FNC footage calling Bush for Florida is what lead the other news organizations to call Florida for Gore.
Which is what happend. I get that Kopel is upset that Moore did not include footage of Fox calling Florida for Gore, but that really isn't the news story here. It is the fact that FNC was the
first to call Bush for winning Florida when in fact the data was just too damn close to call. The responsible thing to do in this situation is to call it a draw and move on. However FNC is the first to call Florida for Bush and the other networks follow suit and because at this point the other states had all reported in this meant that Bush had won the election. This is hugely important as Bush's first cousin runs the decision desk at FNC, meaning he was the guy who in the end decided which state went to what candidate based on the info. In summary, when the data comes in, and the data is as close as we all now now it is, Bush's first cousin looks at the data and calls it for his cousin, and the other networks follow suit. This is Moore's point excatly, this is not misleading.
I could argue the perception this created in peoples mind over who the real winner was but that would be a whole other topic.
David Kopel said:
About an hour before the polls closed in panhandle Florida, the networks called the U.S. Senate race in favor of the Democratic candidate. The networks seriously compounded the problem because from 6-7 Central Time, they repeatedly announced that polls had closed in Florida--even though polls were open in the panhandle. (See also Joan Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television's Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001.)
The false announcements that the polls were closed, as well as the premature calls (the Presidential race ten minutes early; the Senate race an hour early), may have cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided; some last-minute voters on their way to the polling place turned around and went home. Other voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the west coast, the early concession was blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West, such as that of 20-year incumbent James Corman. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while west coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West; Congress even held hearings about prohibiting the disclosure of exit polls before voting had ended in the any of the 48 contiguous states.
Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold. Most of Central Time Zone Florida is in the 1st Congressional District, which is known as the "Redneck Riviera." In that district, Bob Dole beat Bill Clinton by 69,000 votes in 1996, even though Clinton won the state by 300,000 votes. So depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes. A 2001 study by John Lott suggested that the early calls cost Bush at least 7,500 votes, and perhaps many more. Another study reported that the networks reduced panhandle turn-out by about 19,000 votes, costing Bush about 12,000 votes and Gore about 7,000 votes.
Remeber that source Kopel cited way up at the top of this quote? Check it. It's also in Moore's response to these claims. Ya know what, here's a
link. I know when it loads up it looks like you'll never find the info you need, but look at page 5, second paragrpah. The networks called Florida 10 minutes early. I agree that they still shouldn't have called it early at all, but 10 minutes? Who was going to change there mind and actuallly vote within the last 10 minutes? Not to mention having to actually get to the polling place in those ten minutes. This is great because Kopel himself disproves his point, Moore disproves his point, and Kopel still thinks he is right.
As for the claim that the media caused Bush to loose "thousands" of votes, well again, look to the evidence Kopel cites. The only one he names is John Lott. Doing a quick google search on Mr. Lott has revealed that he might just have a little bias, first check this
article at the National Review, which when I went there had ads for Sean Hannity's book, and a deck of cards with liberal politicians on them called the 'Most Wanted Liberal Deck'. I bring this up because Lott's study is based of "my own empircal data". Maybe I am too cynical, but I don't think this guy would be looking at the numbers fairly. No, I am not, take a look at
John Lott's Website, tell me if you think he is Fair and Balanced.
David Kopel said:
At 10:00 p.m., which networks took the lead in retracting the premature Florida win for Gore? They were CNN and CBS, not Fox. (The two networks were using a shared Decision Team.) See Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations" (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)
In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until 2 a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call.
Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.
I don't know why Kopel includes this section. All it does is make FNC look bad. Even after two networks had said, "Hey you know what? This shit is too close to call." they stuck their ground for four hours. I don't care that Fox was four hours later in retracting the claim, the fact that any news organization made a call on Florida is ridiculous.
David Kopel said:
At 3:59 a.m., CBS took the lead in retracting the Florida call for Bush. All the other networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead within eight minutes. That the networks arrived at similar conclusions within a short period of time is not surprising, since they were all using the same data from the Voter News Service. (Mason, et al. "CBS News Coverage.") As the CBS timeline details, throughout the evening all networks used VNS data to call states, even though VNS had not called the state; sometimes the network calls were made hours ahead of the VNS call.
Now Kopel is just being misleading. Of course networks call states well in advance of the Voter News Service. Let's take Texas for example, Bush obviously creamed Gore there. They were going to wait for VNS to say what was obivous? What is interesting about this though is that Kopel tells us that all the networks were using the VNS to call states. What did Fox see in those 16 min between when they retracted their call of Florida for Gore to give the call to Bush? Did the data change that drastically? Again if all the networks were using this data, I would have hoped that someone at a different network would have looked at the data and called it for what it was. The fact remains FNC called it for Bush and the other followed suit.
David Kopel said:
Moores editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false. But notice how he says, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy
" The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change ("All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'")
This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer.
Moore response: On the Florida victory celebration, none. On the networks calls: provides citations for the early and incorrect Florida calls for Gore, around 8 p.m. Eastern Time, and for the late-evening network calls of Florida for Bush around 2:20 a.m. Doesn't mention the retraction of the Florida calls at 10 p.m., or that CBS led the retraction.
For the Moore's response part, like I said above, Kopel just doesn't get it. The Florida victory celebration didn't need a comment, but hey, I gave you one. As for the network calls, this is most telling as Kopel throws in the 'early and
incorrect' line. Also Kopel does not include that Fox lead in calling Florida for Bush, which was the point that Moore was trying to make.
The only problem I can find with what Moore said is "Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true." Because it is probably closer to, "Shit, Fox called something before us, quick, we can't be last!" The rest of what Kopel is saying is wrong. Fox News Channel DID call the election for Bush first and the rest followed suit. All the video clips are real as Kopel says. The problem with Kopel here is that he implies that you have to use a strict definiton of truth to not call what Moore has said a lie. Which is just not true. Every quote Kopel has used has been taken out of context, or worse yet for Kopel, was actually true and could be backed up by fact. Kind of funny how irony has come back to us now all the way down here. What Moore said was true, and what Kopel said was wrong.
Deceitfull don't ya think?
