All the fiction that's fit to print
 

All the fiction that's fit to print

We understand that opinion rather than truth reigns supreme on editorial pages, but that does not mean fact should be replaced by fic ime and time again, the editors of the New York Times have proven they neither comprehend nor follow this basic proposition of good journalism, and this week provided the latest example. All the Fiction That's Fit to Print

We understand that opinion rather than truth reigns supreme on editorial pages, but that does not mean fact should be replaced by fiction. Time and time again, the editors of the New York Times have proven they neither comprehend nor follow this basic proposition of good journalism, and this week provided the latest example.

On Wednesday, editorial board member Adam Cohen published his latest editorial observer column asking "Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?" And, while the main focus of that piece was the presidential recount case has "disappear[ed] down the legal world's version of the memory hole" since 2000, its underlying premise is the biggest of liberal lies -- namely, that through a "raw assertion of power," the five "conservative justices" had "handed the presidency to George W. Bush."

According to Cohen, the decision in Bush v. Gore was "antidemocratic," being nothing more than "the Supreme Court's highly partisan resolution of the 2000 election" and "a severe blow to American democracy." Indeed, Cohen implies that even the "conservative justices" that made up the majority know this by citing to off-hand comments by Justice Antonin Scalia who, in response to a question about the case, quipped, "Come on, get over it."

But if Cohen had bothered even to search the news archives of his own newspaper, The New York Times, he would have found that the foundation of his column was fiction rather than fact.

In the aftermath of the closest presidential election in more than a century, news organizations, including The New York Times, inspected the Florida ballots to discover the truth of which candidate would have won the state's electoral votes if the recounts urged by Al Gore had been completed. Those studies found that Bush would have won.

In fact, a year after the election, The New York Times reported in its lead that its "comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots ... reveal[ed] that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount ... to go forward." Even more explicitly, the news story went on to explain that, "[c]ontrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore."

What's more, The New York Times study only further confirmed the conclusions of an earlier review undertaken by USA Today, the Miami Herald and Knight Ridder. USA Today found that "Bush would have won [Florida] by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted."

In other words, Cohen -- like so many bumper stickers urging drivers to "REDEFEAT BUSH" -- got it completely wrong. Of course, maybe Cohen should have followed the lead of Justice Scalia, whose retort when confronted about Bush v. Gore should have been "Face the facts!" What a refreshing change it would be to read more fact than fiction on the Gray Lady's editorial pages.

The Source