I always assume on this sort of thing (and can me a moron for being so trusting in the system) that the rewards to a single journalist for uncovering such a monumental story would be so enormous that the media would give such rumors a cursory look (at least, individual members of the media) and the fact that there hasn't been a real expose means that there probably isn't a real story (or at least, there isn't enough evidence to prove that there's a real story).

Everybody knows who Woodward and Bernstein were... at the very least every young reporter knows who they were. I'll bet watching All The President's Men is required for first year journalism students like The Paper Chase is required for law students. There are reporters everywhere that could write their own ticket for the remainder of their careers if they were to uncover a story this big and accurately report it. Hell, Druge is set for life and all he did was report on the REPORTING of Monica Lewinsky.

I have faith. Even if you don't trust the big players, you've got to trust the profit/fame motive of those on the bottom to do the right thing.

In this case, if there's no smoke, there's no fire.

I tend to agree with Ingen. When Kerry lost I remember people really not feeling the need to fight too much. Maybe that was because people felt somewhat jaded after 2000 though.

i dunno. i just got mad.

Sorry, Ingen, but I don't buy your argument. First of all, there's been plenty of smoke. Both this article and the Atlantic Monthly article deliver smoke in spades. The problem is, there is no hard evidence of fire. And you can't conclude that nothing happened by the lack of evidence -- you'd have to have some explanatory factor for all the strange occurences described by these articles. But since this seems more like multiple schemes rather than one big, evil one, that makes it very difficult for a journalist to dig deep one way or the other, like with Monica or Watergate. In a situation like this, maybe there should've been a large-scale investigation right afterwards, but the media was too afraid to follow.

And I think you do trust the media system too much. Take the pre-war WMD case. We had arguments in our apartment that questioned the WMD claims far more than the New York Times or the Washington Post did -- in most cases, major news organizations tend to believe the big lies, and question the small ones. Sometimes that uncover the big lies as well, but journalists can lose the trust of their inside contacts if they pursue these too hard.

And look at the phone-jamming case in New Hampshire. It took 2 years for that case to be uncovered, and only now, 4 years later, has there been some justice. Here we are, 2 years after the 2004 election. Forget trusting all the media organizations. The question is: do you trust the hundreds of local election officials to be completely honest? Look what Katherine Harris was able to do in front of TV cameras -- what can take place without them?

There's no question that both sides likely used all manner of unscrupulous tactics in racing for the prize. The Swift Boat Veterans, whom Kerry is just NOW starting to fight back against (as I bang my head against my desk) come to mind. The disturbing fact is that if more people our age voted, "our guy" -- and I scrunch up my face referring to Kerry as such -- would have won.

As you say it, if there are conspiracies, they're on a micro level and as hard to track and prosecute as this current war is to fight for our troops -- the de-centered nature of the problem is by itself the greatest problem for us. The attempt to quantify any of this would be as successful an enterprise as putting the Bush administration on trial should the Dems win one of the houses of Congress back.

We need to stop trying to quench the thirst for a truth that will never come and affixing blame, and instead come forth with a viable alternative that speaks to something already within people, that moves them. Look at the way immigration became a hot-button issue. Look at the way climate change is bubbling on the surface as a topic of political concern. Understanding the use of (and the public response to) media is key to the kind of change we're looking for.

Also, RFK Jr. is a hack of the worst kind, the kind of guy who gives credence to the term limousine liberal. Check out his 'admirable' stance on wind power. Appalling for someone who considers himself a leader of the green movement. I move we stop associating ourselves with figures like this, immediately.

I don't see how I've associated myself with RFK Jr., except to say that this particular theory may have a little truth to it.

It happens on both sides? Of course, especially on the micro-level. Nothing angers me more than our election system. It should be nationalized, at the very least.

"It should be nationalized, at the very least."
-Quit yer whining, you commie.

Seriously, Harper's ran a cover story mainly about Ohio '04 about a year ago. There was a book written too, of course, around the same time. I seem to remember the article's point being basically that fraud WAS committed, but just as y'all have been saying, there's no overarching, grand conspiracy that can be dug up, no proof that SOMEONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS, so there wouldn't be real coverage or investigation. Isn't another component of the lack of follow-through to some extent related to the fact that Kerry wasn't gonna be made to look foolish the way Gore was- he lost, and he was gonna take it like a man, or something to that effect. He set a precedent against questioning the results almost immediately, I thought.

I didn't mean 'you,' I meant the left in general. Especially the environmentalist movement.

I absolutely agree that the election system should be nationalized. It's embarassing that it isn't.

Dammit, it was Harper's, not The Atlantic Monthly. Thanks, Jesse.

> I absolutely agree that the election system should be nationalized. It’s embarassing that it isn’t.

Welcome to my world. A world of embarrassment.

...the rewards to a single journalist for uncovering such a monumental story would be so enormous that the media would give such rumors a cursory look (at least, individual members of the media) and the fact that there hasn’t been a real expose means that there probably isn’t a real story (or at least, there isn’t enough evidence to prove that there’s a real story).

The rewards may be great, but the risk is also great -- if you and your editors stick your necks out by publishing something and it turns out not to be true, goodbye credibility! It's not unrealistic to imagine someone getting fired for writing a story that publicly embarasses someone powerful with claims that turn out to be disproven. This exacerbates the sheep tendencies that are already there because of paranoia about getting scooped ("everyone else is covering Michael Jackson's trial, so we have to do it too or we'll look like idiots").

Plus, I believe that the major newspapers and (obviously) TV media are part of the power structure. That is, higher-echelon reporters at the Washington Post are likely acquaintances, neighbors, friends etc. of the powerful people they report on. Or if they aren't, they know someone who is, and it naturally makes them more hesitant about going for the neck. And it probably also makes them believe the establishment (on, say, whether the exit polls were flawed) when they shouldn't.

On the article itself: it was so compelling/enraging that I suspect it of manipulating me, although I haven't figured out how.