> A clear lie? For a start, the poll question is extremely broad, I doubt anyone believes there was “zero” fraud. Secondly, this is a complex issue, with many possible definitions and magnitudes of fraud, you can’t neatly square it away as “a clear lie.”
The answer selected by 81% was "Enough to influence the outcome". That is not broad, and the answer avoided was "Not enough to influence the outcome", which would encompass potentially thousands of cases of fraud.
It's entirely within the scope of "clear lie".
> Thirdly, as I said, the election was notably unusual and sketchy, so expecting that everyone should agree as if it’s a simple, clear-as-day matter is ridiculous.
And as I said, it wasn't, and the onus is on you to provide any support for your assertion.
I'm not expecting everyone to agree, I'm saying media should not care if everyone agrees and report the facts regardless of hurt feelings and stop catering to audiences.
I misread the link you posted. Still, “affect the outcome” is very broad - the White House winner? some EC votes? a House seat? So is “voter fraud” - presence of fake ballots? demoralisation/suppression caused by the likelihood of fraud?
The election was highly unusual in that it was conducted with a much higher fraction of postal voting (obviously a less secure method, and accompanied by rule changes), and highly sketchy in the way that vote counting took so long to complete and even paused unexpectedly in the key swing states at a point where it looked like the outcome would be different. These things alone ensure that outcome would be hotly disputed.
Telling both sides of the story is the mechanism by which court rooms reach a verdict. Failing to do so is counterproductive, it simply breeds distrust of journalism and makes the selectively reported side appear weaker.
> The election was highly unusual in that it was conducted with a much higher fraction of postal voting (obviously a less secure method
If it was less secure enough to be relevant, we would have heard of cases (or thousands) where voters show up only to have their vote already registered. We haven't. It's still one registered voter - one vote.
> and accompanied by rule changes)
This was the case in many more states, including Texas itself and other disgruntled states. What rule changes do you take issue with and why?
> and highly sketchy in the way that vote counting took so long to complete
That's because states election officials have decided when you can start counting votes. In some states when they come in, in others not before election day. Not allowing early counting has generally been a GOP decision, if that's relevant.
> and even paused unexpectedly in the key swing states at a point where it looked like the outcome would be different.
That's because each county in the country counts independently, and have wildly uneven demographics (thanks gerrymandering...)
> These things alone ensure that outcome would be hotly disputed.
The answer selected by 81% was "Enough to influence the outcome". That is not broad, and the answer avoided was "Not enough to influence the outcome", which would encompass potentially thousands of cases of fraud.
It's entirely within the scope of "clear lie".
> Thirdly, as I said, the election was notably unusual and sketchy, so expecting that everyone should agree as if it’s a simple, clear-as-day matter is ridiculous.
And as I said, it wasn't, and the onus is on you to provide any support for your assertion.
I'm not expecting everyone to agree, I'm saying media should not care if everyone agrees and report the facts regardless of hurt feelings and stop catering to audiences.