More than a month after Sen. John Kerry conceded, the most common complaint from readers focuses on questions about the Nov. 2 election.
They essentially ask: Why hasn’t The Oregonian paid more attention to allegations of election irregularities?
The newspaper’s slow response to the questions helped fuel the criticism. But the complaints also highlight the tension between Web and newspaper reports, expose the short attention span of journalists and accentuate the role of the press in a democracy.
The Oregonian finally published last week a NewsFocus on the complaints, its first comprehensive review of the allegations nationwide. Other news coverage has been limited and spotty. For more than two weeks after the election the newspaper essentially published only one substantial story. Since then, stories or small items inside the front section noted questions about electronic voting, plans for a recount in Ohio, a partial recount of northern precincts in Florida by the Miami Herald, the launching of an investigation by the Government Accountability Office and Kerry’s endorsement of the Ohio recount. Living columnist Margie Boule devoted two columns to highlighting the work of Oregonians on the issue.
At the same time, for weeks dozens of Web sites have focused on election questions, drawing hundreds of thousands of hits. Those reports range from irresponsible postings of conspiracy theories to detailed statistical analyses that raise legitimate questions.
I met with a committed group of representatives of the dozens of people in Oregon working to investigate election irregularities. They were not wild-eyed conspiracy theorists, but everyday Oregonians, ranging from a teacher to a software engineer to an interior designer. They tote reams of reports of inconsistencies in voting patterns, reports of vote suppression and documents reflecting the historical accuracy of exit polling.
Although most opposed President Bush, they contend the issue is about democracy, not who is elected president. “This is not an issue,” says Beth Hahn, “this is the issue: We are losing our democracy.”
That’s why they argue The Oregonian — which is supposed to be devoted to serving democracy by informing people — should pay even more attention, especially when it has focused on questions about the Ukrainian presidential election. And they argue that if the newspaper isn’t interested because it cares about democracy, it should be aware that a high percentage of its readers are concerned.
Given where most of the election disputes occurred — with the exception of Washington state — The Oregonian must rely primarily on wire service stories. That coverage, especially from national newspapers, has not been extensive and deep, but The Oregonian hasn’t taken full advantage of what coverage there was.
The lukewarm interest shown by many newspapers partly stems from the fact that leaders of the Kerry campaign and experts with several nonpartisan election watchdogs have repeatedly said that the errors detected would not amount to a reversal of the election. Journalists have moved on to other, pressing stories of the day.
The limited coverage also reflects the evolving relationship between newspapers and Web logs, commonly known as blogs. Skepticism about those blogs among the press is well-founded; several theories and rumors abound on blogs, including many regarding the election, and often are discredited. But newspapers that ignore significant issues on the Web do so at their own peril; they’re ignoring topics that matter to many readers.
“It’s another reminder that the blog has become an important force in our lives, but that just because something is there, it doesn’t mean it’s more authentic or more real,” says Tom Rosenstiel, of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. “But it does mean that it deserves to be examined.”
Rosenstiel says the press needs to do a better job of tapping and vetting what is discussed in the blogosphere — because blogs often pick up on what matters to many people. “We’re not very good at capturing the discussion going on around the kitchen table and the water cooler,” he says. “That’s what the blogs can do better than the press can do.
And if a significant number of readers have questions about the election process, the newspaper has a responsibility to address those questions. Americans already are skeptical about major institutions, and a recent Harris poll shows 16 percent of those who responded thought the elections were not conducted fairly.
Those who question the election process point out that even computerized tabulating is a human endeavor and can involve honest mistakes. We certainly were reminded of that at The Oregonian last week.
A group that had picketed the newspaper delivered a batch of more than 80 letters to the editor to security guards at the newspaper on a Saturday. For 10 days, the letters stayed at the guard station, failing to reach the fifth floor for editors to consider.
Although since then some of the letters have been published, we should wince at the idea that every voice, like every vote, might not have been considered.
