Report: Corporate Media Ignored Republican Vote Suppression

In the run-up to the pivotal 2004 presidential election, reports of an unprecedented flood of new voter registrations (especially in electoral vote–rich swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania) filled papers and newscasts in local media and the national mainstream press. But looming over this exercise in democracy was the shadow of the disputed 2000 election. Irregularities were alleged among some of the new registrations—such as multiple forms bearing the same name, or monikers like “Jive Turkey”—prompting pledges to purge the rolls and even challenge specific voters at the polls on November 2. There were also reports of flyers and phone calls with false information about where and when to vote, and of voters’ party affiliations being changed without permission. Such problems led to heated accusations, investigations and lawsuits by officials and advocacy groups. At issue were two very distinct charges: voter fraud, the prospect of voting by ineligible people; and voter suppression, the intimidation and/or disenfranchisement of legitimate voters. Given these serious allegations, the press had a responsibility to warn the public about practices that might affect the election’s outcome—and to help us distinguish the real and flagrant campaign charges from the frivolous or false. How well did journalism succeed at this crucial democracy-protecting task? Overall, malfeasances attributed to Republicans were more serious and credible, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out (10/15/04). These included documented “abuses of power” by Republican office holders and “a pattern of . . . efforts to disenfranchise Democrats by any means possible,” including “naked efforts” in Florida to suppress “the votes of blacks in particular.” Krugman accurately noted that “there haven’t been any comparably credible accusations against Democratic voter-registration organizations.” Typically, the stories presented a series of “he said/she said” volleys, focusing on a particular complaint from one side, then matching it with a retort or example of a controversy from the other—whether or not it was valid or comparable. In so doing, they stirred together a stew of criminal mischief and innocuous activities, systematic schemes and isolated incidents, questionable decrees by powerful officeholders and bureaucratic errors. This sometimes procrustean attempt at journalistic evenhandedness served to artificially equalize—and thus neutralize—the problems. [more]