::::::::
The only problem CBS honcho Andrew Heyward is aware of is that "the voting process throughout the United States isn't uniform." There were no irregularities, Heyward said -- none at all.
When a member of the audience asked Heyward to address the fact that people were disenfranchised -- that their votes were thrown out or not counted, Heyward replied, "Well, different states just vote differently and," he shruggrd, "whether we like it or not, in every election there's a minimum of 2 million votes lost. That's just the way it is. In fact," Heyward insisted, "ALL news organizations looked into this, and ALL of us found the results viable."
ABC's David Westin agreed. "Hey, we were expecting a lot more problems than we had. We found overall, the election really went smoothly."
Westin explained the reason that everything worked out so legitimately was because of the furor over the 2000 election. "People just weren't looking back then," he said. "They were caught by surprise. And, when everything was said and done, they felt like they'd been had. So--" Westin said brightly, "between then and now, the problems were fixed. People were watching this time."
Neal Shapiro, NBC, pointed out if there was a problem, it was with the conspiracy theorists on the Internet -- the (shudder) wild-eyed "bloggers" who keep stirring up trouble.
"There were NO irregularities," he said adamantly, looking at the grinning Westin and Heyward -- "and if there were, they weren't large enough to tip the balance. We looked. We just couldn't find anything wrong.
"Look," Shapiro continued, "Whether we like it or not -- elections come and elections go. This one's gone. There will be another one in four years, and we'll be right there to cover it too."
The program was a re-run of a Nov. 15 seminar at Columbia University wherein the three media stooges explained network coverage of Election 2004. They countered each question with condescending spin, and their contempt for the members of the audience who kept pressing them about why they didn't at least address the possibility of vote fraud was barely concealed.
One young woman strayed from the election topic and launched into the lack of network investigative reporting on why 9-11 occurred, but was cut off abruptly by University moderator Richard Wald -- "Speech is free," snapped the Professor of Media and Society, "but you're certainly not allowed to give one here!"
Apparently realizing that the audience was far more frustrated than informed, Wald wrapped it up by scolding the students for their impolite performance.
"There is always a tendency to seek the lowest common denominator," he said, with a scowl. "That's why people (like you) try to find fault in things like the recent election. These news directors here," Wald nodded at the three sitting beside him, "are the ones who were determined to seek the high ground. And that's exactly what they did."
End of story. Move on. Nothing to see here.
