U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

71–490DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

ELECTION NIGHT COVERAGE BY THE NETWORKS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 14, 2001

Serial No. 107–25

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

2

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

TOM SAWYER, Ohio

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LOIS CAPPS, California

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana

JANE HARMAN, California

DAVID V. MARVENTANO, Staff Director

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

(II)

3

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Ailes, Roger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Fox News .................. 115

Biemer, Paul, Research Triangle Institute ..................................................... 46

Boccardi, Louis D., President and Chief Executive Officer, Associated

Press ............................................................................................................... 89

Heyward, Andrew, President, CBS News ....................................................... 105

Johnson, Tom, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, CNN ...................... 111

Konner, Joan, Professor of Journalism and Dean Emerita, Graduate

School of Journalism, Columbia University ............................................... 34

Lack, Andrew, President, NBC News ............................................................. 118

Risser, James V., Retired Director, Knight Fellowship Program, Stanford

University ...................................................................................................... 39

Savaglio, Ted C., Director, Voter News Service ............................................. 85

Wattenberg, Ben J., Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute ............ 43

Westin, David, President, ABC News ............................................................. 95

Material submitted for the record by:

Boccardi, Louis D., President and Chief Executive Officer, Associated

Press, letter dated November 16, 2000, to Congressman Billy Tauzin .... 173

Dingell, Hon. John D., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Michigan:

Letter dated March 26, 2001, to Andrew Heyward, President, CBS

News, enclosing questions for the record, and responses to same ..... 174

Letter dated March 26, 2001, to Joan Konner, Professor of Journalism and Dean Emerita, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University, enclosing questions for the record, and responses

to same ................................................................................................... 178

Letter dated March 26, 2001, to James V. Risser, Retired Director,

Knight Fellowship Program, Stanford University, enclosing questions for the record, and responses to same ........................................ 180

Savaglio, Ted C., Director, Voter News Service, letter dated April 13,

2001, to Hon. John D. Dingell, enclosing response for the record ............ 167

Tomlin, David, Assistant to the President, letter dated February 5, 2001,

to Hon. John D. Dingell and Hon. Edward J. Markey, enclosing response to questions ....................................................................................... 170

Westin, David, President, ABC News, letter dated April 9, 2001, to Hon.

John D. Dingell, enclosing response for the record .................................... 176

(III)

(1)

ELECTION NIGHT COVERAGE BY THE

NETWORKS

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:07 a.m., in room

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin

(chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Tauzin, Bilirakis, Barton,

Upton, Stearns, Gillmor, Greenwood, Cox, Deal, Largent, Burr,

Whitfield, Ganske, Norwood, Shimkus, Wilson, Shadegg, Pickering,

Fossella, Davis, Blunt, Bryant, Ehrlich, Buyer, Radanovich, Pitts,

Walden, Terry, Bass, Dingell, Waxman, Markey, Towns, Brown,

Deutsch, Rush, Eshoo, Stupak, Engel, Sawyer, Wynn, Green,

McCarthy, Strickland, DeGette, Barrett, Luther, Capps, Doyle,

John, and Harman.

Staff present: Mark Paoletta, majority counsel; Tom DiLenge,

majority counsel; Jan Faiks, majority counsel; Charles Symington,

majority counsel; Ann Washington, majority counsel; Julie Corcoran, majority counsel; Anthony Habib, legislative clerk; Yong

Choe, legislative clerk; Edith Holleman, minority counsel; Laura

Sheenan, minority counsel; and Chris Knauer, minority investigator.

Chairman TAUZIN. The committee will please come to order. The

Chair recognizes a presence of a quorum and welcomes all of you

to this important oversight investigatory hearing on the issue of

election night coverage of the Presidential election November 2000.

I would ask our guests to settle in and get comfortable. I apologize

for the conditions of the room. Mr. Dingell and I have commented

just before about how we are outgrowing the size of this room with

the size of our committee, and we apologize to our guests for the

limited space, and to the press for the limited conditions under

which you have to work today, we apologize.

The Chair recognizes himself for an opening statement. Ladies

and gentlemen, today we will be hearing from some very important

witnesses who will give us a real sense of what went wrong in

terms of the election night coverage of the Presidential election of

November 2000, but I would be remiss if I did not remind all of

us that this is not a new problem. As Mr. Dingell pointed out to

me, it was a problem of the seventies. It was a problem going all

the way back to the Kennedy-Nixon election when Illinois was

called in the one column back and forth several times. It was certainly a problem in the eighties and we have several charts that

2

I think will give you an idea of what we experienced in the

eighties, when elections began to be called on the basis of exit polling data and early projections of winners in the Presidential race

were thought to have a profound effect on local races, particularly

congressional races in the West, when this committee and other

committees of the Congress held hearings, over a dozen hearings,

in the 1980’s examining the problem of early exit poll calls and its

effect upon voter turnout in other elections.

I have a chart that I will ask the staff to put up which contains

some of the headlines that were predominant in the 1980’s. You

can see these headlines: Networks in Dispute on Fast Projections;

Angered California Voters May Attempt to Beat the Clock in 1984;

Time Zone Fallout; TV Changed the Election of the Eighties. These

are headlines from important newspapers, New York Times and

Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and others in the

1980’s. What follows is a chart that includes some of the quotations

of that era from the members of the committees who actually held

hearings.

I call your attention, for example, to the chairman of the 1984

House hearings, Representative Timothy Worth of Colorado. His

quote, which will go up in a minute, is that ‘‘The evidence is overwhelming from our perspective, at least my own, that there is a responsibility that when you report early people do not vote,’’ he goes

on to talk about the early calls made then.

Ed Markey, my good friend in 1980, who sponsored and pushed

forward legislation for a uniform poll closing time, was quoted as

saying ‘‘Then your interest in Election Day is not building an audience.’’ I am saying another philosophy takes over. It has something to

do with projecting the winner. It becomes a race for the networks,

for the news departments on Election Day. And there are quotes

on this chart you can examine from Bob Matsui and John Glenn,

who is a Senator, who was also testifying at those hearings. Our

good friend Nancy Pelosi from California is quoted saying ‘‘As an

organization person I can tell you that the early projections had a

very deleterious effect on the morale and actual voting that occurred.’’

So we have statements in these hearings going back in the 1980’s

about the problem that occurred with early calls in the 1980’s.

If you’ll also, however, look at the next chart, you will see that

we were not alone in criticizing the use of exit polling. The networks themselves were criticizing the use of exit polling and were

questioning whether exit polling was in fact a valuable tool or a

dangerous tool. You’ll see quotes from none other than Walter

Cronkite suggesting that exit polling was a dangerous tool, from

the head of CBS announcing that this was not something that networks ought to be doing because this was just guessing and projecting rather than reporting the actual news of an election.

Of course, since the 1980’s all of the networks have come to rely

upon those exit polling data more and more. In fact, as we know,

in 1990 some of the networks decided on a single source for that

exit polling, the Voter News Service, in order to, I suppose, prevent

some of the competition among the networks to be the first with

the news. In 1994, that collaborative effort was broken again when

3

one of networks chose to go ahead of VNS and make decisions on

their own and their ratings soared because they were first out with

projections, and we arrive today at a time and an age when we

have seen another example of how exiting polling data produced

from VNS may have had a serious effect on the outcome of elections in some local and other races out West because of the early

and sometimes flawed reporting of those results in the East.

I want to quote to you from a young legislator back in the 1980’s

in his statement before this committee. The quote is as follows:

‘‘further, in today’s technologically advanced age we are experiencing a problem with dissemination of information, sometimes incorrect, and the media’s projections of winners often before the

polls even close.’’ This young Member called for a uniform nationwide poll closing time and a universal time when voters therefore

would cast their vote without the influence of early calls. That

young legislator was none other than the chairman of this committee today.

The problem existed then and it certainly existed on election

night November 2000. The way this committee came into recognition that we were still experiencing the problem despite an agreement in the 1980’s that the networks would not try to make projections based on exit polling until most of the polls had closed in the

State was when we examined the problem of the networks delaying

calls for one of the candidates while making speedy calls for other

candidates. Something appeared to be wrong, and so we held a

news conference and called for this investigation.

I am pleased to say that not only did we conduct a very thorough

investigation at this committee level but the networks did so themselves. I want to thank all of the networks for the work they did

in self-examination of the problem. I particularly want to highlight

CNN for hiring outside consultants to examine and critically evaluate the role of CNN and other networks in their use of the VNS

information on election night and CBS for using outside counsel in

their report. Let me thank all the networks for the self-examination.

What we have learned from the self-examination by the networks

is that there are serious flaws within the VNS modeling and those

serious flaws produces statistical biases in favor of Democrats in

this case today and against Republicans, that the statistical flaws

tend to overstate the Democratic vote in the exit poll and understate the Republican vote, and we have charts again to demonstrate that and we will today.

The good news is that we discovered no evidence of intentional

bias, no evidence of intentional slanting of this information. What

we discovered, to our dismay, is that while we’ve been told that

exit polling is getting better in the country, what we have learned

is exit polling is getting worse, that it is less scientific today than

it was before, and that the VNS models in fact produce some very

bad information. As one of the networks told me, ‘‘garbage in, garbage out.’’ And the problem basically that we have to answer today

is how can we at this level, recognizing the very sensitive First

Amendment rights of the reporters and the networks to report the

news as they see fit, recognizing that we would defend your right

to do it wrong if you really wanted to, how can we assist in getting

4

some new agreements to do it right and how can we assist through

this investigatory hearing to not only settle some of the outstanding issues that were not settled in the eighties but perhaps

make changes in the law that will help produce a situation where

Americans have a chance to vote without being influenced by the

reporting of the election itself before the polls are closed.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, we arrive at this point, our own

investigation producing evidence of flawed and biased modeling,

the networks producing similar findings, the networks being very

responsible, I think, and critical of their own VNS systems, and we

arrive at this point where we give the networks and the VNS representatives and others a chance to explain what happened and

what they suggest we might do in the future to avoid these problems.

And before I finish, with the agreement of the minority, we have

prepared a brief 10-minute clip in chronological order of the events

of election night 2000. We would like to show you that clip because

it presents the problem, I think, in dramatic form. This is the way

networks were using VNS in November 2000.

[Videotape shown.]

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you. I’ve been asked by Mr. Dingell to

correct the record, that while we did share the video with the minority there was no agreement to show it today.

Let me conclude by summarizing quickly again what our staff

discovered for us. What our staff discovered for us is that the VNS

modeling, according to our investigation, is seriously flawed, that

it underestimated in exit polling numbers 32 States for Bush and

underestimated only 15 for Gore. But it overestimated for Bush 15

States and overestimated for Gore 34 States, indicating some clear

error in the system, and that is the ultimate finding of our investigators.

We look forward today for a similar discussion of what the networks themselves found and what VNS has found and eventual

testimony of the network representatives themselves. The Chair

now yields for an opening statement to my friend from Michigan,

Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I enjoyed the video. I

hope my friends at the networks found it equally enjoyable. I will

observe that it chronicles a monumental screw-up which I think

has embarrassed an awful lot of people.

I would observe that today we are going over the results of an

election. My first memory of an election was Roosevelt in 1932.

More recently, I remember the Literary Digest in 1936 which predicted that Alf Landon would win. As you remember, he carried

two States. And then I had the great enjoyment while I was going

to Georgetown University, just out of the Army, in seeing a wonderful picture of Harry Truman holding up a copy of the Chicago

Tribune saying ‘‘Dewey Wins.’’

The business of predicting in the highly competitive and complex

business of elections is an enormously difficult task, and I commend you for having these hearings because I believe they will give

us a chance to review what has been done, what needs to be done,

and how it is that we should approach this as a Nation.

5

I would simply observe that for good motives and bad, because

of skill or incompetence and sometimes from outright malevolence

and sometimes for quite decent motives, elections have been called

wrong by the media for a long time. The good news and the bad

news are before us. First, the good news. Because of the massive

attention to miscalls by the networks on election night and perhaps

because of this hearing and inquiry, Mr. Chairman, the networks

and others have to varying degrees taken a hard look at themselves and drawn tough and I think appropriate conclusions. CNN,

CBS and ABC in particular should be commended for their efforts.

Another good piece of news is that contrary to inflammatory allegations made in November the inquiry found no evidence of intentional bias. Clearly had there been such, the credibility of the networks would have been shattered, and I think properly so. The

very publicly and seemingly prematurely—there have been expressed fears of some of my colleagues that have not happily been

realized on this matter.

And the final piece of good news is that this hearing may serve

as a wakeup call for all of us here, especially the Republican leadership, to muster similar effort and energy to have the House address the real electoral issues of voter disenfranchisement. That is,

I think, perhaps the sorriest story of this election, and I hope that

perhaps you and I, Mr. Chairman, will be able to lend our skills

to that task. I would note that it tends to point out massive needs

for reform of financing and almost everything else.

Now for the bad news. From the outset it appeared that many

found that the inquiry was an attempt by the Republicans to shift

attention from the well-established election problems in Florida

that cost Vice President Gore the presidency. At the outset it also

appeared that this inquiry would cause collateral, if not direct

damage to the First Amendment protections to the free press, and

from the outset it appeared that there were many allegations being

made with too little factual basis. I do not believe that these concerns are as great as they were at the time, and I hope that they

will be eased by the hearing that we are holding today.

What did we learn, Mr. Chairman? That numerous problems before and after and during election night led to network errors that

affect both parties, Democrats and Republicans? That critical and

later rescinded late night calls of Florida for George Bush that

were a basis of perception for some of the media and the public

that George Bush was a winner and Al Gore was a spoiler was the

networks’ fault with Voter News Service and Associated Press not

in support? The answer to that is yes. That networks can and must

make major improvements to gain lost credibility? Absolutely. The

Congress after thorough review of the pros and cons will need to

at least consider requiring uniform poll closing times? I think that

is a certainty. And that Congress itself is more credible when its

investigations are carefully calibrated and targeted, and public conclusions are drawn after the investigation is done? I think that is

clear and I think with that you would agree, too, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank all the witnesses for appearing here today, particularly Mr. Boccardi of the Associated Press. I would note that we

Democrats will be particularly welcoming Mr. Boccardi. He refused

to allow his staff to talk to our people on this side although they

6

were happy to be interviewed by various media outlets. I think we

will want to ask him about that little matter. I know he will have

a fine answer for us. I certainly look forward to hearing from him

as AP will probably have an interesting story to tell.

I thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the

balance of my time.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank my friend. The Chair yields to the

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for an opening statement.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I

want to also add my welcome to the witnesses and thank them for

taking time away from their very busy schedules to be here. I think

we learned an awful lot from what transpired this last November,

and I might add partially into December. As Mr. Dingell stated,

there was a lot of good news and a lot of bad news. I think the good

news is an awful lot of American people may be, for the first time,

aware of how very significant their vote might be. This business

about my vote might not count or won’t count will probably not be

as much in their mind as it has been in the past.

The bad news is the controversies that have taken place. The

eyes of America really are on this committee, Mr. Chairman, and

I think they clearly expect us to do something. I think with your

leadership and maybe the bipartisan spirit that hopefully will continue, we will do something right in this regard. Thank you.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank my friend. The Chair now is pleased

to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for an

opening statement.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The networks have a fundamental obligation to give us unbiased and accurate information at all times and particularly when they are reporting election results. But I want to read from an article that appeared just today in the Los Angeles Times. It is called ‘‘How TV

Killed Democracy on November 7.’’ It is an editorial by Todd

Gipling. He starts off saying ‘‘Suppose that a first cousin of Al Gore

had been running one of the network news teams issuing election

night projections. Suppose that having previously recused himself

from a columnist job saying his objectivity would suffer from family

loyalty, this cousin had chatted with Gore six times on Election

Day. Suppose the same cousin had been the first to declare Gore

as the winner in Florida on election night, helping coax the rival

networks to follow suit, leading George W. Bush to call up Gore in

order to concede, thereby helping to create that Gore was the duly

elected President of the United States long before all the votes had

been counted. Can anybody reasonably doubt that the pundits

would be working themselves into a nonstop lather charging the

liberal media as accessories to grand larceny? Can we imagine, say,

Rupert Murdock’s Fox news channel right leaning heads dropping

the subject?’’ according to Mr. Gipling.

Well, of course, what we know is that this did not happen with

Al Gore, but it did happen with Fox and John Ellis, and of everything that happened on election night this was the most important

in impact. It created a presumption that George Bush won the election. It set in motion a chain of events that were devastating to Al

Gore’s chances and it immeasurably helped George Bush maintain

7

the idea in people’s minds than he was the man who won the election.

But I know we are going to look at different ideas. I think the

idea of a uniform poll closing is a good one. There are a lot of ways

to avoid the kinds of problems that we saw on election night, and

that is one of the best ones being proposed. I think what we are

seeing is a result of cost cutting by the networks in their news divisions. It resulted now, as we see it in hindsight, in the chaotic result of election night reporting, which not only was embarrassing

to them but it had an impact on how the American people decided

the election and therefore had an impact on how the election was

ultimately decided.

Thank you for calling this hearing. I look forward to hearing

from the witnesses and getting a chance to question them.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank my friend. The Chair will take a moment to advise the committee that the investigators did make fact

findings regarding the 2:16 call in the morning that are available,

and we will discuss them during the course of this hearing as well.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for an opening statement.

Mr. BARTON. I want to thank the chairman for conducting this

hearing. I think it is timely. I would hope at the end of the hearing

that perhaps on a bipartisan basis we seriously look at some legislation that would result in a common closing of the polls around

the Nation so that all candidates are treated equally in terms of

the spin that is put on which States are going which way so that

we won’t have a situation that apparently perennially occurs every

4 years where depending on whose candidate is doing the best at

one point in time one party’s candidate feels like they are being

disenfranchised or unduly chastised by the calling of the election.

So the hearings are timely and I hope that we might have a legislative result occur jointly as a result of hearing, and I would yield

back.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes

the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for having

this hearing. The closest Presidential election in American history

certainly posed great challenges for pollsters, journalists and commentators, not to mention the candidates themselves. Early election evening calls in certain States for certain candidates were

driven by reliance on projected voter tallies lists. In one key State,

Florida, the call was clearly too early as not all polls had closed in

that State’s Panhandle region, but even so the call for Gore was

based upon faulty data, and the subsequent call of the entire election for Bush in the wee hours of the morning was similarly flawed

and premature.

But was there bias? In the immediate aftermath of Election Day

questions were raised as to whether early calls were part of a vast

left wing conspiracy. Were dozens of network journalists, the staff

of the Voter News Service, all of the network news directors, a

score of election night anchors, and the President’s first cousin all

co-conspirators in an intricately designed plot to call key States

early for Vice President Gore? Or on the other hand, was it an ingeniously designed deception whereby all of the co-conspirators

8

would provide an electoral feint early in the evening by calling

Florida for Gore simply to throw the conspiracy theorists off their

trail when their true design was to call the election for George

Bush just hours later without adequate supporting data?

A complicated conspiracy theory without question. It is of course

preposterous to believe there was such a plot. Rather, I believe that

the only bias in common for all the networks was the desire to be

first, this competitive urge which blurred their own judgments.

Rather than calling States in a way that led to voter suppression,

I believe that early in the evening the reporting was consistently

of a nature that the election was indeed going to be very close,

which could have led to an increase in turnout rather than a lowering of turnout.

If one wants to question whether early calls for Gore suppressed

Bush voters out West, couldn’t one equally argue that if it was so

apparent to everyone if Gore was going to win then the Nader vote

could increase, leaving Gore out in States like Oregon and Washington. Why isn’t that as equally plausible? We will never know.

We could indeed have a wide ranging debate over who was hurt

most by election night coverage. Was it Bush because of the early

evening calls of a few States for Gore or was Gore hurt more because of the subsequent network announcement of the entire Nation for Bush, which created the presumption during the entire recount that Gore had already lost? I believe that any aberration in

calling certain States at the time they were called was based not

on deficiencies in journalistic ethics but rather on the fact that the

networks were relying upon the professionalism and the integrity

of the work performed by the Voter News Service. It was clear that

the models utilized by the VNS were highly flawed and the close

election in Florida amply highlighted for all the networks subsequently the problems and the methodology utilized by VNS. The

problem, in my view, is not with the network news divisions or

their anchors therefore, but rather with VNS. It is clear this flawed

methodology and resulting shoddy VNS data misled the network

news divisions and caused many of the problems for the networks

and their election night coverage.

In addition, the fact that the networks readily agreed that they

erred in calling Florida before all the polls closed in Florida is also

well known. The networks’ reaffirmation not to call States in the

future until all the polls in that State are closed is welcome and

laudable.

My hope is that this hearing will wind up serving a useful purpose. If we can agree that there was no overt bias, no networkwide

conspiracy, then we should also stop searching for unconscious

messages packed into the choice of adjectives or the on camera

body English of network anchors. Instead let’s see what Congress

can do so that in the future nobody can allege that early calls affected voters elsewhere in the country. I believe a key part of the

solution is legislation which would establish a uniform poll closing

time. Uniform poll closing bill, H.R. 50, which I was pleased to introduce with the active leadership of both Chairman Tauzin and

ranking Democrat John Dingell, seeks to give Congress a constructive way to prevent news reporting of the outcome of one State

from influencing the behavior of voters in States where the polls

9

are still open. It is both unrealistic and probably a violation of the

first amendment to mandate that the results on the East Coast not

be reported for 3 or more hours while the West Coast is still voting,

but news organizations have repeatedly expressed a willingness not

to report the results in a State before the polls have closed in that

State and not to report the results of a time zone in a State if part

of the State is still voting in another time zone.

The fact that this pledge was not honored to the letter in Florida

will be noted today. But I believe that the networks intend to correct this problem, and I also believe if we can get broad support

for uniform poll closing this hearing may lead to a permanent beneficial change in the way we conduct national elections.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to thank all of our

witnesses for their voluntary cooperation with the committee.

Thank you.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank my friend. I want to assure him that

neither the committee nor the chairman ascribes to any vast conspiracy theories, left or right. I yield to my friend from Florida, Mr.

Stearns.

Mr. BARTON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Is it not true

that under the rules, except for the chairman and the ranking

member, all of members’ opening statements are supposed to be 3

minutes or less.

Chairman TAUZIN. That is exactly correct and the Chair will ask

everyone to abide by the 3-minute rule, including the gentleman

from Florida.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me commend you

for holding these hearings. I thank the witnesses for attending. I

know how busy they are.

I am also proud to be a cosponsor of the Tauzin-Markey legislation which creates a uniform poll closing. I would like to put in the

record a news release from Florida Secretary of State Katherine

Harris in which she requested the media to delay predictions of the

outcome of elections until 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. ‘‘Florida

has six counties in the Central Time Zone and the Secretary wants

all Floridians’ votes to be cast prior to predictions on the winner

of races. With several races too close to call, full voter involvement

is imperative for Floridians to participate in the electoral process.

The last thing we need is to have our citizens in the Central Time

Zone think their votes do not count because it certainly does. Waiting until 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time allows all of Florida the

opportunity to decide the outcome of races within Florida.’’

This is dated October 30, 2000 and Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to make that part of record.

Chairman TAUZIN. Without objection, it will be made a part of

record.

[The news release follows:]

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Katherine Harris, Secretary of State

NEWS RELEASE

SECRETARY OF STATE REQUESTS PATIENCE IN PREDICTING WINNERS OF RACES

Tallahasee, FL—Secretary of State, Katherine Harris today requested the media

to delay predictions of the outcome of elections until after 8 p.m. Eastern Standard

10

Time. Florida has six counties in the Central Time zone and the Secretary wants

all Floridians’ votes to be cast prior to predictions on the winners of races.

With several races too close to call, full voter involvement is imperative for Floridians to participate in the electoral process. ‘‘The last thing we need is to have out

citizens in the Central Time zone think their vote doesn’t count—because it certainly does!’’

Waiting until 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time allows all Floridians the opportunity

to decide the outcome of races within Florida.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the networks and news organizations are entrusted with delivering citizens with unbiased truthful

reporting. They are supposed to cover and report the news, not create it. Unfortunately, this did not happen on November 7, 2000.

What we found is, ‘‘a staged collective drag race on the crowded

highways of democracy,’’ all stumbling past the finish line to be the

first to report. One would suppose network news organizations

would have learned their lessons from 1984 when they called the

Presidential election before the polls on the West Coast closed. As

a result, they promised us to voluntarily agree not to use exit polls

to call the race until the majority of the polls in that State had

closed. This did not happen.

Mr. Chairman, what we have here is a very important hearing.

Regrettably, by calling Florida for Vice President Gore before all of

the polls had closed in the State, the networks’ projections may

have also depressed voter turnout in portions of the Florida Panhandle, a region of the State which is a Republican stronghold.

We, as well as the networks, have learned a lot since election

night, so I look forward to today’s testimony to know how and why

the vote projections were made and, more importantly, to learn

what steps and procedures the network and news organizations

will take to ensure another election night debacle does not happen

again.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognize

the gentleman, Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. I thank the chairman. While the networks deserve

criticism from the Congress and the public, I am amazed that this

committee is holding a hearing about election night coverage while

this Congress and the Bush administration are not moving legislation to correct the flaws in the system, to standardize ballots, to establish uniform poll closing, to modernize election procedures, and

equipment.

This Congress must act to end Republican efforts to suppress minority voters. The revelations of voter intimidation tactics in Florida are one example of the practices that national and State GOP

officials have been using for more than 20 years to keep voters, especially minority voters, from the polls. For 8 years as the Ohio

Secretary of State I saw the kind of voter intimidation, suppression

and harassment created and carried out by the Republican Party

at the highest levels.

The evidence of voter intimidation in Florida reminded me of the

1981 gubernatorial race in New Jersey. Sponsored by the national

and State Republican Party, the National Ballot Security Task

Force, comprised of off duty deputy sheriffs and local policemen,

monitored polling places in predominantly African American precincts. They wore arm bands that identified them as members of

the Ballot Security Task Force. They posted warning signs that

11

they were patrolling the area and it was a crime to violate election

laws. The Republican Party acknowledged doing that in a settlement later.

We saw in Florida 2000 a kinder, gentler version of the Ballot

Security Task Force. We know of the purging of thousands of voters, mostly black voters, illegally from voter rolls. We know of police checkpoints established near polling places. We know of requests for additional forms of ID in predominantly African American precincts. All of these tactics were created and executed by Republican officials, usually high ranking GOP officials.

The media had the responsibility to tell the public more about

these voter suppression tactics. These forms of intimidation diminish the electoral process.

Similar to the suppression tactics, the media repeated some of

the same mistakes when reporting on the Florida recount. I was in

Florida during the recount and witnessed firsthand the media’s reluctance to fully examine statements the Republicans made about

the recount process. In Palm Beach County I stood 20 feet from

Governor Pataki of New York as he repeatedly said four recounts

had been conducted. Four recounts had been conducted. Like birds

off a telephone wire, every Republican elected official repeated this

mantra. All fair-minded people know that the four-recount charge

was simply not true.

In another instance I stood by as Senator Lugar from Indiana

stated that his State doesn’t do hand recounts. A simple call to his

elections office confirmed that the Hoozier State does conduct hand

recounts. But the media allowed Lugar and Pataki and countless

other Republicans to repeat this mantra generally unchallenged.

These statements reflected a series of distortions backed up by

a conservative, corporate-owned media too lazy to scrutinize such

allegations and too eager to manufacture drama. The media have

the responsibility to check the facts for their audience. I asked the

news executives here today, scrutinize our observations, refrain

from adopting a ‘‘he said, she said’’ approach to news coverage because the ‘‘he said, she said’’ coverage causes politicians to exaggerate, to distort and even to lie.

Florida surely taught us that. Do not accept what we say. Make

us tell the truth. This task is a challenge of today’s 24 hours news

cycle. I ask you to resist merely filling the time with talking heads.

I hope that the media does its job better. I hope that we in Congress do our jobs better as well.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair

recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, for an

opening statement.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all

members be allowed to enter opening statements into the record.

Chairman TAUZIN. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you. Let me thank all the

members on this committee. Let me thank all the witnesses that

will be here today. I am not here today searching for answers. I

have had an opportunity to read the testimony, to look over the

interviews, to try to analyze the data, and I have come to a conclusion, the networks screwed up. A combination of flawed methodology, competitive forces, close elections, and the pressure to be

12

first overshadowed their promise to be accurate. Ladies and gentlemen, if we were handicapping the show ‘‘Survivor’’ and who the

winner might be, this might have gone unnoticed. But it wasn’t.

This was about the election of the next President of the United

States. We do a lot and have done a lot to protect the Office of the

President. We teach our children that having one President, we

must protect the integrity of the office regardless of the office holder. Our Founding Fathers entrusted the President with incredible

powers because they understood the importance of the office in this

very young country.

Those same Founding Fathers also entrusted the media with incredible powers, powers that are so clearly stated that few suggest

that a change is necessary or constitutional. They believed that for

a Nation to grow its people must be informed. They feared that

without specific restrictions the government might be tempted to

filter the information and allow an important trust to be broken.

Ronald Reagan said it best when he said he never understood

what was so important about the United States Constitution.

Every country had one. He said it wasn’t until he read theirs that

he understood what was so powerful about ours. Theirs starts ‘‘We,

the government.’’ Ours starts ‘‘We, the people.’’ The American people are the single greatest asset of this country. Their trust in their

leadership and their trust in the media must exist without objection. Without trust that fine balance created by our Founding Fathers will quickly grow old and be replaced. The integrity of the Office of the President will only exist in the history books, and the

freedom currently entrusted to the media will be assaulted as often

as people disagree with the news.

Americans deserve to know that the information that they hear

from the media is legitimate, accurate, and truthful. Let’s give confidence to the American people that our Nation’s free system protects the public interest and does its best to communicate the

truth. I am confident that during the course of this hearing the

American people will listen anxiously to hear the Members of Congress’ commitment to conduct free and fair elections and for the

media’s commitment to report factual and accurate results.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back, but I also would like to welcome Mr.

Biemer, a constituent in North Carolina, and thank you for the invitation to him.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair thanks the vice chairman of the

committee for his welcome to Mr. Biemer. We will give you an official welcome as soon as we can.

The Chair yields to Mr. Deutsch or Mr. Rush. Mr. Deutsch is

next.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in your

opening comments you said the purpose of this hearing is to investigate what went wrong with the election coverage, and I think

that is an important issue for this Congress to investigate. But a

far more important issue which at this point this Congress is not

investigating is what went wrong with the election. And in a public

setting like this I urge my colleagues who have the ability in a formal way, which we as the minority cannot call meetings in any

committee of this Congress or establish any formal committee of

this Congress, to look at the real issue of what happened this past

13

November, what went wrong with the election. Let me present, I

think, what is probably a much more accurate thing that no one

at this point has mentioned, that the exit polling was probably

more accurate than the counting the actual counting of ballots, specifically as in Florida.

I spoke to the statistician for VNS, which will be at the next

panel, sitting at least; and I intend to question Dr. Murray

Edelman about this.

One of the realities of what happened in Florida, and again I’m

going to say it, is both the polling and exit polling very well might

have been more accurate than the actual counting. If Florida was

a foreign country and we had American election observers in Florida and over 100,000 ballots were thrown out, a majority of which

were African Americans, there would be no American who would

accept the results of the Florida election as a valid result.

And in fact that is what happened in Florida. There is a direct

correlation between ballots that were thrown out and the racial

complexion of individual precincts.

When the Supreme Court made its ruling to stop the counting

of ballots I said publicly and privately at that time that my hope

for the good of the country was that when they counted the votes

George Bush would win. But we now know through the good work

of many news organizations and not this Congress—and, again, it

has not been presented that much in the national press, but if you

read the articles and you understand the numbers there is no question, there is no question, it is no longer debatable that if the vote

in Florida were counted, Al Gore would be president of the United

States.

So really in a sense we want to talk about projections, and the

results I would actually present to this committee is that, in fact,

the Supreme Court’s political decision of stopping the counting of

the votes was in fact influenced by the missed calls of calling Bush

the President. If there was no winner after November 7 I think the

political decision very well might have been different.

Let me just close on two points. One is, my good friend and colleague, Mr. Stearns from Florida, mentioned the issue of the Panhandle in Florida. It’s not the first time that that allegation has

been mentioned. There is absolutely no specific—any kind of empirical data to support those allegations. They have been continuously

discussed, as have been other issues discussed during the whole

post-election effort, including other colleagues of mine who talked

about the Gore campaign’s vast conspiracy regarding overseas absentee ballots without any factual basis at all.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank the gentleman.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cox,

for an opening statement.

I’m sorry, Mr. Greenwood is here.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is an everyday occurrence for Members of Congress to be called

and summoned to respond to the media. Each one of us here receives probably a dozen calls a day from reporters, radio, television,

14

newspaper, magazines interrogating us, interviewing us, calling us

to task, reminding us editorially of our responsibilities.

It is, on the other hand, an extraordinary rare occurrence for

Members of Congress to summon representatives of the media before us and to interrogate them and to remind them of their responsibility. So I think the fact that we’re doing that today tells us

the importance with which we consider this issue and reminds us

of the incredible power of the media and particularly the medium

of television.

We are extraordinarily sensitive to the first amendment issues

here, and there isn’t a member of this panel or Member of Congress that wants to in any way infringe upon that. We recognize

the dangers that lie therein, but we do want to remind the media

of its responsibility. We do want to challenge it to do a better job

4 years hence; and, in fact, I am certain that the media may not

even need that reminder. It is probably busy about figuring out

how to do that.

It seems to me not a difficult task. The fact that the television

networks have been able to collaborate as they have with VNS and

have a common mechanism by which to call these exit polls makes

it a practical—relatively easy matter, practically speaking, for the

media to collaborate on how to do it right; and I’m hopeful that this

hearing and what falls from this hearing will produce that result.

Yield back.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair now yields to the gentleman from

Chicago, Mr. Rush, for an opening statement.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend you for holding this hearing. However, Mr. Chairman, my colleague from the State of Florida, Mr. Deutsch, asked a question; and that question was, what

went wrong? Mr. Chairman, I for one, an individual who has

fought all of his adult life to ensure that everyone have access to

the polling place on Election Day and that their vote be counted,

I for one have some pretty serious concerns about and regarding

about what when wrong on Election Day.

Mr. Chairman, in the State of Florida and also in my State of

Illinois, what went wrong on Election Day was the fact that we had

literally hundreds of thousands of people throughout this Nation

who got up early on the morning of November 7 and proceeded to

the polling place with the thought in mind and with the objective

of voting for their choice for President of the United States. And,

Mr. Chairman, we found out that between leaving their homes and

arriving at a polling place that literally hundreds of thousands of

people had been harassed by police departments, not only in the

State of Florida but other places, asked to present identification,

were told that they were under investigation for criminal charges,

all types of shenanigans by police departments all across this country.

We found out that people who decided that they wanted to come

to the polling place to exercise their constitutional rights were in

more than one type, more than one way denied access to the polling place, access to vote because of some kind of spurious charges

against them.

15

Then, Mr. Chairman, we also find out that those who were lucky

enough to cast a vote, for a lot of different reasons those vote

weren’t counted. And my question to you and my question to the

Republican members of this committee and the Republican leadership in this Congress, when will we have a Congressional investigation, a congressional hearing on the issues that those folks who

were denied the right to vote, when will we have a hearing so that

we can get to the bottom of the issue so that we can get some answers about why they were not—why they were denied the right

to vote?

Mr. Chairman, this might be a good hearing. We might be able

to get some answers. But let’s not just focus on the media today.

Let’s also look at what happened beyond the media. Let’s look at

what happened with the police departments all across this country.

Let’s look at what happened in the polling place. Why were African

Americans and other minorities denied the right to vote? Why were

they denied the right to have their votes counted? I know that

that’s an appropriate concern not only for this committee but other

committees in this Congress.

Again, the question is, when will the Congress ask the right

questions in order that we get the right answers? When will we

have a hearing, a congressional hearing, an official Congressional

hearing to allow for those individuals who were denied the right to

vote on November 7 to come before this committee, come before

other committees, to come before this Congress, to get their answers in terms of why they were denied the right to vote?

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair thanks the gentleman.

The Chair has a responsibility now, which I do not, frankly, like

to admit, but the gentleman’s request involves the jurisdiction of

another committee, believe it or not. It’s one of those small areas

we don’t have jurisdiction over. But I thank the gentleman for his

request.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.

Cox, for an opening statement.

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In this exceptionally close election the TV networks in this Nation came face to face with a dilemma that’s been familiar for some

time to people in subatomic physics, that in some cases the act of

observation influences and changes physical reality. To observe

something is to influence it; and that can have very real consequences, as many of my colleagues have pointed out. The experience of last November illustrates this dramatically. An overzealous

competition to, as Mr. Markey said, get there first, to predict the

Presidential winner first, inflicts costs on the entire Nation, on the

viability of the democratic system and on journalism itself.

What took place on election night we will hear from this first

panel and from subsequent panels but, to quote from the outside

review conducted for CNN, reflected commercial rather than journalistic values. ‘‘In calling winners of individual States based on

exit polling and votes from sample precincts, accuracy and completeness of information were sacrificed to the pressures of competition.’’

16

Our mission in Congress can’t be to police journalistic ethics.

That’s why these internal reviews go on. I dare say that CNN did

not, in fact, do much worse than the other networks, even though

the outside review that was conducted of CNN seemed to be the

harshest at all. It’s much more likely rather the case that CNN is

the only one that had an outside rather than internal review. And

where there were some outside reviews conducted, the criticism

probably would have been on par for all of the other networks.

That’s good. That’s good that these reviews go on, and some of

them are indeed outside reviews. And it’s good that Congress is relieved of that responsibility, because I believe it is not within the

bounds of our legislative jurisdiction. But we do have responsibility

in the area of election reform, and some of what we can do with

election reform is directly influenced by what the networks do

themselves.

I just want to add to what’s been said already my view from California where Democrats and Republicans have for years been complaining about the calls on the East in close elections. Congress

held hearings on this very subject after the 1980 election. Those

hearings went on for years. There was a report of the House Administration Committee, which I have with me here, that makes

very specific findings on these very topics. And in 1980 the shoe

was on the other foot. It was not Republicans who were complaining about the early call in Florida but rather Democrats who

were complaining about the early call of the entire election, which

prompted an early concession from President Carter.

The House Administration Committee concluded early projections—and this was in the 1980’s and this was, of course, a Democratic majority in Congress—early projections undermined people’s

belief in the importance of their vote, a belief which is essential in

a democratic society.

Some of the evidence before Congress at that time from the State

of California included our Secretary of State’s testimony, March

Fong Eu, that early projections caused havoc and had a significant

impact on voter turnout which she said dropped to practically nothing in the last few hours of voting. The same came from Diane

Feinstein, then the mayor of San Francisco; from Nancy Pelosi; and

you said earlier a field poll showed that 15 percent of nonvoters

said they failed to vote because of early projections.

It is for that reason that I have sponsored with the chairman and

with Mr. Markey the early—or, excuse me, the uniform poll closing

legislation, which I think is going to be very much in people’s

minds as we hear the testimony here. We hope that such procedural reforms, in conjunction with the reforms being put in place

by the networks themselves, can help us accomplish this objective.

I thank the chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair

thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, for an opening statement.

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join all the members of

the committee in thanking you for holding this important hearing.

I would also like to thank the distinguished witnesses that have

come to us today from both panels and most especially to the reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
17

tired director of the very distinguished Knight Fellowship Program

at Stanford University, Mr. Risser.

Let me just try to summarize some of my thoughts on this hearing and a few things beyond it, which I believe belong to—in the

responsibility column of the entire Congress. I can’t help but think

that just as our markets, which are the broadest and the deepest

in the world, that the coin of the realm really is confidence. That’s

why investors invest; that’s why we’re the envy of the world; and

that’s why we are very sad to have lost that jurisdiction in this

committee, Mr. Chairman, over the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But we have to have confidence or the confidence that I just expressed—the American people have to have confidence in their system of election, and I think that’s really at the heart of today’s

hearing.

Most frankly, I didn’t know anything about VNS before November 7. So I think people that are here today are going to talk about

who they contract with, how they conduct their business, how they

are looking into building the confidence of the American people and

how they report to them, not reporting any biases or individual

views but rather reporting very accurately or as accurately as is

humanly possible in our technologies that provide for so much more

of that today in bringing that information forward to the American

people.

We would always judge emerging democracies by their elections.

And a lot of things went wrong in this election. And while it may

not be the purview or the jurisdiction—and most people listening

in today don’t even know what the word jurisdiction means in the

country, but they know something went wrong. This is not whether

the Republicans won and got their candidate into the White House

or that Democrats are whining because their nominee didn’t make

it. This is an American issue. This is something that strikes at the

heart of democracy.

I hope that there will be a delegation led by the leadership from

both sides of the aisle with open minds and open hearts to go to

congressional districts to listen to people. We have a cancer that

needs to be put out of our election system, and that is any American that has been deprived of casting a vote and that their vote

doesn’t count.

So, yes, we need to reform. We need to hear from the networks

and what they plan to do. We need to move to, in my view, a uniform poll closing time. We need to have, in my view, national ballots. We need to have equity when it comes to equipment that goes

to our polling stations all over the country. But we also have to

look very deep. We have to look very deeply and be willing to——

One of the greatest marks of America in my view is that we are

willing to acknowledge when we have done things wrong. It may

take 10 years. It may take 20. It may take 50. But we acknowledge

it, and that’s part of our greatness. So I think that the Congress

needs to embark on that journey.

Today is an important first step, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for

holding the hearing. And I look forward to working not only on this

but those issues that may be out of the jurisdiction of this comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
18

mittee because I think the American people are counting on us to

do so. Thank you.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair thanks the gentlelady for all her

curtesies; and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia,

Mr. Deal, for an opening statement.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, today I’m reminded of the biblical admonition

that to whom much is given, much is required. As we delve into

this area of first amendment constitutional rights, likewise the recognition that even that must be exercised responsibly.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that our Nation has given much

to the national media, our valuable time and listening to what you

have to say or reading what you have to write and also our expectations that the news is not self-generated but reflects true facts

that are external. But today this hearing will focus on news that

by its very definition is self-generated, that of predicting elections;

and, therefore, we must question whether the facts upon which this

news is predicated has any preventible statistical bias. In other

words, why did VNS use sample models that had not been adjusted

for decades and in my part of country, the South, did not reflect

the very apparent change in regional political alliances that had

been manifest in many elections that preceded the Presidential

election of 2000?

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward today to hearing what the

media intends to do to fulfill the high expectations of the public

and what, if anything, we as elected representatives should do to

assist them in that direction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair thanks the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Stupak for an opening statement.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

After what happened in the November election, it is critical that

Congress take a bipartisan look at how to assure that every American who wants to can exercise their right to vote and that his or

her vote is accurately counted. The American people want us to fix

the problems with voting and tabulating machines, with badly designed ballots and careless election officials who deliberately or otherwise keep people from voting. And they deserve to have these

problems fixed. They deserve, Mr. Chairman, to have them fixed in

a deliberate and fair manner, one which does not include—does not

include partisan rhetoric.

Mr. Chairman, I want to work with you constructively over the

next 2 years to ensure this committee works in a fair and bipartisan manner. I would gently, gently point out to the chairman that

the initial statements offered by his office suggested that there was

initially biased coverage of the networks in favor of Al Gore. I am

glad to see in the last week’s press conference you admitted there

was no evidence of intentional bias although I could point out that

you seem to have made a premature call in this case just like the

networks made two premature calls on election night.

Chairman TAUZIN. Would the gentleman yield? I’ll extend the

time. I want to correct the record.

The Chair did not make a premature call. All the Chair stated

in the initial press conferences was that there was an obvious bias

in the results. We didn’t know what caused it. I was asked whether

19

I thought it was intentional. I said I don’t know. Until we investigate, I can’t say. We investigated, and the investigation indicated

no evidence of intentional bias, and we called it that way. I think

we called it as we saw it correctly then, and we called it correctly

today.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the chairman. I was going to say, but like

the networks who relied upon the best available information filtered through your own beliefs. And now with hindsight we find

there was nothing in the network’s coverage on election night that

indicated that either candidate was on a roll. There was no credible

evidence of the allegation when it was made, and there is even less

now. Members of Congress, like members of the media, must do

their research before they make serious allegations.

The second allegation was that the networks had effectively

called the entire election for Al Gore by 8 p.m. when they gave

Florida to Gore and suppressed voters in California. Even a cursory

review of the transcripts of the network’s coverage of that night

makes it clear that allegation cannot survive. Selected excerpts

from the transcripts do not justify such a conclusion and come dangerously close to censorship of the press.

I welcome this hearing and attention our committee has focused

on the Voter News Service and the networks’ process for making

election night calls. This scrutiny has forced VNS and the networks

to examine their decisionmaking process and improve it in the future. No one has an alleged that the current system is flawless or

does not need to be improved. However, I believe Congress should

be investigating the true and most fundamental flaw exposed by

this Presidential election, the fact that our country needs to improve and standardize the voting systems in this country to ensure

that everyone’s vote is counted in the way the voter intended it to

be.

Nothing the networks did or did not do changed the outcome of

this election. Not the first call of Florida for Vice President Gore

nor the subsequent Florida and overall election call for President

Bush, both of which were retracted. What did change the outcome

of the election was a flawed ballot design in Palm Beach County,

an inadequate ballot and counting method in Florida and other jurisdictions all across this country.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses

today. I look forward to working with you and this Congress on a

range of important issues, not the least of which is the election reform. I only suggest that we put this hearing in its proper context.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair wishes to do two things real quickly. One is to also

clarify the record. We received a note that NBC has indicated it

also included an outside expert in its initial analysis. Let me invite

the representatives of the networks when they present their testimony to clarify the record to make sure we know if they were outside experts who were part of that internal review so that the

record might adequately reflect it.

The Chair would also announce that we have two votes on the

floor, and that those are the only two votes of the day, and that

20

what I would like to do is to take another opening statement or two

while we have the time. Then we will recess for a half hour and

come back at 1 and hopefully complete opening statements and

begin to hear from our witnesses as rapidly as we can.

My apologies for these interruptions.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.

Largent, for an opening statement.

Mr. LARGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’ll be very brief and simply say that we hold one national election. We do that every 4 years. And I think protecting the integrity

of that process is the responsibility of every Member of Congress

and specifically as it relates to how the media may or may not influence the outcome of that one national election we hold is definitely under the purview of this committee.

So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.

Because, frankly, when you think about it, to bring up this painful

experience, and it was painful for all of us, to bring this experience

back up before this committee is a hard thing to do. And I would

like to believe that we would be holding this hearing regardless of

what the outcome was, because protecting the integrity of this election is so important.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I’m looking forward

to hearing from our panels and thank you for having the courage

to hold this hearing because I do believe that protecting the integrity of this process is important to our democracy. Thank you.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank my friend.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Sawyer for an opening statement.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to be brief and

turn in the rest of my opening statement for inclusion in the

record.

I really agree with all of my colleagues. This oversight hearing

provides a great opportunity not only to understand what happened but to educate Members of Congress on the efforts that the

networks are making to improve the quality of reporting. Early or

erroneous reporting is important because of the concern that selffulfilling prophecies can affect the outcome of an election.

Yet it’s very clear that a legislative fix is not the proper course

of action here. The first amendment would preclude us from prohibiting the media from interviewing voters as they exit the polls.

It would preclude Congress from prohibiting the media from reporting the results of those polls. And the first amendment clearly

gives the media the right to choose how and when to report the

news. It’s a fundamental protection not just for the first amendment rights of journalists, but in their role as surrogates for 280

million American citizens it protects the first amendment rights of

all of us.

I believe that early or erroneous projections need to be addressed

by the networks and not by Congress. In this competitive news environment, perhaps the most competitive in human history, the

networks have every incentive to make sure that what happened

on election night last year does not happen again.

I look forward to hearing the recommendations that have been

made with regard to the models and the new policies that will

come before us today, but let me make one final observation. StaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
21

tistical analysis of very large data sets is a subject I’ve studied in

depth over the past dozen years. It is a highly developed and deeply sophisticated science, one applied in only the most superficial

ways in exit polling and in on-the-fly election projections. I hope

that the statistical models and methodologies used in electoral applications will attract the careful scrutiny of both this committee

and the networks and in so doing not only to improve reporting in

the future but, even yet, to understand what actually happened in

this election and to answer Peter Deutsch’s question what went

wrong.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank my friend for his insightful comments

and recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the

Telecommunications Subcommittee, Mr. Upton, for an opening

statement.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your calling

this hearing and the hard work of both you and the staff in putting

this together, and I also appreciated looking at the videotape at the

beginning of the hearing as well. It brought a lot of good and bad

memories back from that haunting evening. But it also underscores

the need for real election reform. America was embarrassed by that

seesaw night.

I am anxious to hear the testimony by those that rely on the

VNS, Voter News Service. What was particularly tragic to me was

that the UNS, the Upton News Service, did a better job; and it did

a better job without a single field staff or exit poll anywhere in the

country. I would note that the UNS accurately predicted Florida,

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio,

Michigan and even easy ones like Texas, California and New York.

No, it didn’t end up being perfect, but it did call the night right.

As a news organization, as news organizations, America wants fairness and it wants accuracy. And, sadly, we didn’t see a lot of it on

November 7.

I yield back my time.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank my friend.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Engel,

for an opening statement.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think many of my colleagues on the committee would agree

that if we were engaged in a lawsuit we could easily be entitled to

compensation for mental and emotional distress.

Before discussing the news media’s action on election night, let

me first say that I believe wholeheartedly that there is a need for

an overhaul of the voting process. Though new equipment is key,

we need also to be looking at whether registration is handled in a

timely manner and what day and time we vote, how well voting

procedures are explained to each person and how the votes are tallied and verified.

I’m gravely concerned about reports that people were prevented

from voting, many of whom were minorities. The Civil Rights Commission is holding public hearings at which many people have testified that they were not allowed to vote because they weren’t on the

rolls. Nor were they afforded the opportunity to vote and sign an

22

affidavit for later verification. Such allegations must be thoroughly

investigated.

Al Gore was not the only one who lost that night. The American

people lost that night, and the news media also lost that night. For

many years public confidence in the news media has been on the

decline. I suspect that it took a nose dive on election night.

In order to begin winning back that trust, the news media must

take action, and in the spirit of my friend Tim Russert here are my

suggestions.

No. 1, slow down. The American people don’t need to know that

President George W. Bush sneezed 30 seconds after he did it.

Two, check facts. Check your facts. Too often, I see news stories

that are just plain wrong. In the case of the election, pay greater

attention to State law. The election was so close that a mandatory

recount was required, thus making the outcome murky, not in the

bag.

And, three, balance. Strive much harder for balance. When you

interview someone on a controversial issue, get an opposing point

of view. That may make the news story longer, but it will also

make it better.

This is the formula for winning back the people’s trust; and I

thank you, Mr. Chairman for these hearings.

Chairman TAUZIN. Good job, Eliot.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Whitfield, for an opening statement.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I’m

sure the representatives of the network feel they’ve been punished

enough by listening to all of us all this time.

I would simply say that there’s a lot of cynicism in America

today. I hear a lot about it in my district, and frequently people

say I don’t really believe much of what a politician says today. I

don’t believe a lot about what I read in the paper, and I don’t believe a lot about what I hear on television today.

I think that’s one of the real tragedies of what happened in Election 2000 and the reporting of it. Instead of building up confidence

in the American people in our established institutions like the

press, we seem to be tearing that confidence down. I hope this

hearing will focus on that issue, and I know that the networks will

make every effort to correct it because they have every interest to

do so.

I look forward to the balance of the hearing.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman, Mr. Ganske, is recognized for an opening statement.

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, here’s the crux of the problem: Exit

polling can affect those who haven’t voted if the polls are still open.

You, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Markey have a bill to forbid exit polling results until the Nation’s polls are closed and then to make

uniform closing times across the country. The goals are laudatory,

but the implementation is difficult because of equity problems with

voters on the East Coast having better voting hours than those on

the West unless have you very long poll hours nationwide. Nevertheless, I commend you and Mr. Markey for posing a solution to

23

the problem of exit polling affecting whether voters even bother to

vote; and I look forward to the testimony.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank my friend.

Will my friend yield quickly? I want to correct the record. The

bill does not prohibit exit polling. I think that would be an infringement on the first amendment.

Mr. GANSKE. Exit polling reporting.

Chairman TAUZIN. All it simply does is set a uniform poll closing

time. The networks have rather uniformly after their internal reviews indicated they would probably all agree not to use exit polling results until after that poll closing time. So I think their voluntary agreement to do that along with the bill might go a long

way.

I thank the gentleman for his kind comments.

The Chair announces a recess until 1.

[Brief recess.]

Chairman TAUZIN. The committee will please come back to order.

We’ll ask our guests to take seats and get comfortable.

The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green,

for an opening statement.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not give my total

open statement and ask it be submitted for the record.

I will just briefly say that I appreciate the chance that the committee has to look at this. I know, historically, the committee has

looked at this before. I think from the testimony I’ve read the networks agree the early closing, the early announcement needs to be

corrected and also the—some type of uniform election date. Now,

I know—or election closing time.

Do I believe there were mistakes made in the decision-making

process of the networks? Sure. And do I believe the Voter News

Service used bad exit polling? Sure. Do I believe this issue is a

major factor in deciding the outcome of the Election 2000? Absolutely not.

I think the rest of my statement, Mr. Chairman, will point out

that the biggest concern that I have is that the Florida election system—and there but for Florida could go any State—that predominantly the number of discarded ballots were predominantly minority Democrat voters; and I would hope if not this committee then

this Congress would look at not only our issues today but also why

we have such a large percentage of overvotes, for example, in—

46,000 overvotes as compared to 17,000 for President Bush. I think

that we need to look at that.

We need to look at, for example, Palm Beach County. The ballot

design was not new, but there were 8,000 voters who chose Vice

President Gore and actually had theirs discarded. In that country,

the Democratic candidate for Senate in that county won by 10 to

1.

So I think there’s a lot that we need—this Congress needs to look

at the election and particularly see what we can do to make sure

that when people go vote they know their vote will be counted.

I particularly appreciate Mr. Deutsch’s comments. In Florida,

maybe the exit pollings were right and the actual counts were not.

So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank my friend.

24

The Chair recognizes Mr. Bryant for an opening statement.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, want to add my thanks for you holding these hearings.

Certainly they’ve expanded, at least in terms of the opening statements. We’ve heard from the other side maybe beyond the scope— the intended scope of the hearing. But, nevertheless, we will move

forward.

I want to thank the extremely qualified and talented witnesses

we have, of the various panels. As I look back across the audience

and see a couple of panels waiting who are from television I can’t

help but think that you can relate now to what we who are consumers of your product feel during long commercials. In essence,

that’s what we’re hear—we paid a lot of money to get up here.

Chairman TAUZIN. Will the gentleman yield?

My wife would also like ask you to keep the volumes the same

when you go to those commercials. We never had a chance to say

that. Thank you. Thank the gentleman.

Mr. BRYANT. In some ways, it’s very similar. But, hopefully, we

will move along now and hear your testimony.

I do have limited comments. A lot of what I would like to say

has already been said. But I would reiterate I think a couple of

points made particularly by Mr. Greenwood and others that we are

talking about the Constitution and the First Amendment here,

freedom of speech and certainly we intend to tread very, very lightly here.

There are restrictions, as all of us that went to law school understand, to the first amendment, but they are very limited; and certainly we’re not talking about those here. On the other side, there

is a counter position, that anyone who speaks should, particularly

when it comes to something as important as elections, should speak

responsibly. And our concern that I share with Mr. Largent and

others in terms of the influence, I think you understand completely

the influence that you do have over the public in so many ways;

and to deal with the institution of electing a Presidency we have

to be extremely careful. I’m sure there were lessons learned by all

here, and they will be taken to heart as we move toward the next

election.

One of the things I think a lot of us will endorse is the idea of

a uniform closing time on Election Day, particularly when you’ve

got many States like my home State of Tennessee who have 2

weeks of unfettered early voting. I think as more States move to

that it would be easier to have a uniform closing period of time,

even though it is somewhat complicated. But also we must insist

upon obedience by the media of your agreement to not call States

until the polls are closed.

Finally, I would comment on a couple of quick issues that have

been raised about exit polling being accurate. As we will learn later

in the hearing, some of the counties in some of these States, the

16 percent in terms of being off in that exit voting—and I don’t

think anyone here is saying that any of the counties, particularly

in Florida, the undervote was 16 percent of the total vote. I hope

not. But, in any event, so much of what happened in Florida, like

other States, is a State issue in terms of how they conduct their

polls and how they run their polls and run their elections and

25

count their votes and all. I hope we shy away from trying to Federalize every election in every State. I don’t think that’s our job.

As I watched the coverage, as many of you did, the post-election

counting in Florida, the three or four counties that I saw in contests so much seem to be counties that were actually controlled— election commissions and people who operated and administer the

elections in those counties were controlled by what appeared to be

the Democrat party. And I know we talk about butterfly ballots— this is again rehash and rehash—but again that was approved beforehand by a Democrat administrator in the county.

So these are really State issues, and I hope the States do look

at how they conduct their elections. I do hope they look at how they

write their ballots and the due process they give before the election

occurs for people to object and how the voting population is educated. So many of these undervotes were out there, were multiple

votes. People voted more than one candidate. I don’t know how you

can count those.

But, again, a lot of this comes back to the States. A lot of this

will come back to the individual voters to make sure they’re informed and know how to vote. And if they have a problem voting

at the box they go seek an official out and say, I voted wrong; or

I don’t know; I’m confused here.

But so much so much of our democracy depends on individual responsibility. So I hope we use caution not only in treading on the

first amendment but also in the Federal Government trying to impose its big body in the State-run elections.

I would—I think I have run out of time—would yield back any

time I might have remaining.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Strickland for an opening statement.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my colleagues, it seems a

little ironic to me that we should be criticizing the media for saying

things to the American public which is not accurate. Could it be

that we are applying a standard to the media which we ourselves

as Members of this body do not observe?

A case in point: On C-SPAN this morning, the networks were

criticized for their delay in calling Ohio for Mr. Bush. The accusation was made that Mr. Bush had won Ohio by six points. But the

fact is that Ohio was a much closer election than that. Mr. Bush

won Ohio by less than four points. In fact, the official results from

the Ohio Secretary of State indicate that Mr. Bush got 50 percent

and that Mr. Gore got 46.4 percent.

I believe in this committee we should do nothing that would

interfere in any way, to any degree with first amendment protections. But we can and we should clarify what has happened and

make sure the public is fully informed about those facts, and then

trust the public to make appropriate use of those facts.

From my perspective, as it turns out, the early initial projections

in Florida were in fact accurate; and I believe that the counting

which is going on in Florida will eventually substantiate the fact

that the networks were initially correct in their judgment.

I would hope that the major issue of electoral reform would capture the attention of this committee. The people in my district are

26

not complaining to me about election night projections, but they are

wanting to make sure that every American can vote and that every

vote is counted.

What we have today in our country is the unfortunate situation

where many Americans believe that the person who was elected by

the people does not occupy the Office of President. That is a sad

fact, and it is a situation that we should not ever allow to happen

again.

I return the balance of my time.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes Mr. Norwood for an opening statement.

Mr. NORWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be very brief, but

I do want to thank you for having this timely hearing. I think it’s

very appropriate. And separate from our friend in Ohio, our people

are complaining about the exit polling and when it came out. But

this—we need to stay on the point here.

Probably all of us believe in the first amendment very strongly.

We believe in your right to free speech, and we believe in our right

to free speech. However, we also believe in the right of a fair election. And part of that and the part that we are particularly zeroed

in on today and may look at other parts later, but today we’re talking about how does incorrect exit polling affect the outcome of national elections.

It isn’t just about the State of Florida. I think our investigators

and others have proved without a shadow of a doubt that the exit

polling that caused the networks to predict winners and losers incorrectly and wrongly was a very flawed model, and that is important. In the 1980’s, it was important to the Democrats. In year

2000, that was very important to the Republicans.

I hope all of us on both sides of the aisle, both sides of this committee, will understand that next time it may be you. We’re not

going to any time legislate, I believe, against networks’ freedom of

speech or any of their rights. But it is important to point out to

the networks that they do have a very large responsibility not to

incorrectly affect an election, regardless of who won, regardless of

which party you’re in.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this. I believe as we hear from

the witnesses today that everyone will leave here knowing that the

exit polling, the model we visit with today is simply flawed; and

that must be corrected.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes Ms. DeGette for an opening statement.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’ve been sitting here patiently listening to my colleagues make

their opening statements. And as a Member from the West, we’ve

been hearing about these problems for years. Because every time

we have a Presidential election we worry in the West about what

will happen to our voting when exit polling from the East comes

in. It has been an issue for many years. It will only I think serve

to increase—as you see, the recent census data that shows population increasing in the Sunbelt and particularly in the West.

Now, I think—I’ve heard all my colleagues. I think we could sit

up here and argue for the next 4 years what exit polling did. Did

27

it depress votes in the Panhandle? Did it hurt votes in Colorado or

Arizona or California or Oregon or Washington? Many of these

issues will be made moot by different kinds of balloting that we’re

having.

I just was looking at my newspaper clips. The Colorado legislature is about to pass a bill for mail-in balloting like we have in

Washington and Oregon, and I think that will make a lot of the

projecting that the networks are doing an obsolete task and will

have to find different ways to do it.

What I do think, though—and also I think that it would be terribly wrong of the U.S. Congress to trample on the first amendment rights of the media in order to try to solve a short-term problem. And there is no doubt about that in my view.

I do think that there are some things we can do, Mr. Chairman.

I think that that’s what this committee should focus on. We should

focus on election reform. We should focus on looking at closing of

polling places and what time we do that. We should focus on ballots, and all of those things that can serve to give Americans confidence in the polling process. That’s what we should be doing.

Finally, I will say I don’t think this is a problem solely of the

media. I think it’s just as much a problem as ourselves, the public.

I would suggest that we as citizens of this country victimize ourselves by our own need for urgency. In this era of rapid communication and the insatiable need for instant information, there are

times when I think we need to pause and evaluate the risks inherent in our demands to get access to information. That’s not something the media can do by itself. That’s something the citizens of

this country need to decide for themselves.

So, you know, without venturing into the topic of oversaturation,

the media is responding to public demand; and I think we need to

ask ourselves, is this need to know the results of an election as

soon as possible denying millions of voters their right to be a part

of the process? If it is, what can the American public do about it,

not the U.S. Congress putting unconstitutional restrictions on the

media.

I’ll yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Pitts is recognized for an opening statement—new member

of the committee.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, the right to vote is the most fundamental civil right in a democracy in representative government;

and when that right is taken away from anyone, the proper response is shock and outrage. Whether we’re talking about Jim

Crow laws or irresponsible or flawed news coverage, the effect is

the same. Somebody’s right to cast a meaningful vote is taken

away.

Mr. Chairman, in my State of Pennsylvania the polls close at 8

p.m. But in Presidential years the lines are so long in some places

that people are still voting as late as 9 and 9:30. But you only have

to be in line by 8. The line closes. But if you’re in line at 8, you’re

allowed to vote.

On election night in November, two networks called Vice President—for Vice President Gore at 8:47. That means that thousands

of Pennsylvanians voted 45 minutes after some in the media had

28

already decided the winner. Interestingly, I think calling the votes

so soon violated even the industry’s own standard for prudent prediction of election outcomes.

Well, you might say that that would not have—it would have

been the same either way for Pennsylvania. After all, in our system

it’s winner take all and—but you can’t say that in Florida. In the

case of Florida, the Panhandle was open for a whole hour after the

rest of the States stopped voting. How long were the lines at closing time in the Panhandle? It seems to me quite likely that the

media called Florida for the Vice President, what, an hour, perhaps

2 hours before everyone was done voting? And the networks were

wrong. How many voters gave up and went home? How many voters thought the race over and their vote didn’t count? One hundred? Two hundred? One thousand? Just a couple hundred voters

out of thousands would have made a huge difference in the month

that followed.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, we have no business calling elections

until people are done voting. It’s not just a problem of accuracy. It’s

a problem of ethics. The right to vote is sacred in this country, and

it deserves the very highest level of protection that we can give it.

By any measure, what happened that night in November was a reporting disaster. It’s our responsibility, it’s our duty, it’s the duty

of all of us, especially the media, to make sure that it never happens again.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. I thank the

witnesses for appearing today.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank the gentleman.

Now recognize another new member of our committee, Mr. Doyle,

for an opening statement.

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for

convening this hearing to further examine the events that took

place at the network level on election night.

As was made clearly evident in the election night and post-election night coverage, the networks and, by extension, their election

night coverage policies have played and will continue to play a significant if not integral role in the entire process of electing a President. That fact in and of itself warns that we must strive to place

the utmost importance on accuracy as our first and foremost concern.

Mr. Chairman, much of what I was going to say in my opening

statement has been said many times over; and in the interest of

finally hearing our panelists some time today I will ask unanimous

consent that the remainder of my remarks be inserted in the record

and yield back my time.

Chairman TAUZIN. Without objection so ordered.

Mr. Terry is recognized for an opening statement.

Mr. TERRY. I’ll yield back.

Chairman TAUZIN. Mr. Walden.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, want to thank you for both this hearing and the way this

hearing has been laid out and organized. Because I think really the

thrust here is to look at the Voter News Service model and the formula and what worked and what didn’t work. It’s not to attack the

first amendment.

29

I’ve spent 15 years in the radio business myself as an owner and

operator. I have been on both sides of this table, actively reporting

election report results on the election night, gathering them at the

courthouse, broadcasting them over the air, coordinating that coverage, as well as having been a candidate. I’m aware of how tricky

it can be on election night, how information you get initially may

not be the right information and how careful you have to be at reporting that information. Numbers get transposed; election results

get confused; clerks sometimes make errors; partial returns may

not reflect the overall outcome of a precinct. So it is very important

for those of us who are in the media to make sure the information

we give out to our viewers and listeners and readers is accurate.

I also believe that we have a great obligation to make sure that

as election results are put forth, as projections are given that we

don’t somehow influence the outcome, make the news, if you will.

I happen to represent the Second District of Oregon. One of my

predecessors was Representative Al Ullman, who was defeated in

the 1980 election. I was a press secretary of the campaign of the

candidate who defeated him. I remember very well our feeling

when the networks claimed that Jimmy Carter had lost and the effect that had on the West Coast. Even the Washington Post I note

reported Rep Al Ullman of Oregon, Chairman of the House Ways

and Means Committee, won’t be back to Congress next year. He

lost by 1 percentage point. He blames it on the time zone effect.

The time zone effect is real. And I was disturbed, I guess, by

some of the information—I think it was in CBS Review—where one

of the authors concluded there is no research proving western voters are dissuaded from voting by results in the other States. And

yet I have before me, Mr. Chairman, information from the Secretary of State of California, Bill Jones, a letter from 1998 also

signed by our former Democrat Secretary of State Phil Keisling and

others from around the country, pointing out that, based on Election Day surveys in California alone, turnout dropped by 2 percent

after the announcement in 1980. According to a study by the Field

Institute, 10 percent of those questioned blamed the news media

projections for their failure to vote.

Chairman TAUZIN. For the sake of the record, would the gentleman offer that into the record?

Mr. WALDEN. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[The letter follows:]

SECRETARY OF STATE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

April 10, 1998

Dear Network Executive:

Last October, California Secretary of State Bill Jones and six fellow colleagues

who represent the contiguous western states, wrote to you urging the networks and

other news media from reporting exit polling and early projections during last November’s presidential election. As was explained to you then, every four years some

50 million Americans, who live in the Western United States, are essentially delivered the message that their vote may not mean as much as their fellow citizens who

begin their day three hours earlier on the East Coast.

Each presidential election year Americans in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana,

Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Alaska and Washington have their vote devalued by early

news media projections, specifically those based on exit polling information and not

concrete results as reported by our fellow secretaries of state.

30

Travelling throughout our respective states last fall, prior to Election Day, we Secretaries of State heard from the voters directly their concern about this important

issue. The message from our voters is clear. They want an Election Day that is not

predetermined by polling and predictions.

As you recall, in 1980, when ABC, CBS and NBC projected Ronald Reagan as the

winner shortly after 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST), nearly three hours before the polls closed on the West Coast, followed shortly after by President Carters

concessions speech, it had a chilling effect on voter turnout. Based on Election Day

surveys in California alone, turnout dropped by about 2 percent after the announcement in 1980. According to a study by the Field Institute, 10 percent of those questioned blamed the news media projections for their failure to vote.

This year, once again election officials and campaign workers reported that many

voters left the polls without casting their ballots, phones in elections offices stopped

ringing and get-out-the-vote drives fell apart as a result of early exit polling and

projections.

In fact, in 1996, the problems associated with projecting contest winners based

on early exit polling results was not confined solely to the West. As our colleague

from New Hampshire, Secretary of State Bill Gardner, can attest, the news media

organizations erred in their prediction of the winner of the state’s U.S. Senate election. That is a mistake that we can assure you no one wants to see repeated.

Although we concede that on Election Day there was little doubt as to the anticipated outcome of the 1996 presidential election, there were a great many state and

local races that experienced difficulty in turning out their voters following premature news projections that the presidential race was over. The Western State’s candidates and voters deserve to play on the same level playing field as their East

Coast counterparts.

We must not allow our Election Day to become the equivalent of a drive-through

democracy, where expediency is gained at the expense of fairness. Every American— regardless of where in the country he or she calls home—is entitled to make informed and independent decisions, uncomplicated by prejudicial reports that ‘‘the

election is over,’’ based on incomplete information from one or two geographic regions.

We, the undersigned Secretaries of State, recognize the negative impact of media

exit polls on voter turnout in the Western States during presidential elections.

Therefore, we request that all media networks join together to refrain from releasing any presidential exit polling results for the 2000 election cycle until the polls

close in our Western States (PST). On behalf of the millions of voters who call the

great American West home, we urge you not to abridge their right to participate

in the process of electing the president and congress of the United States by broadcasting or reporting early projections on Election Day.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Bill Jones, California Secretary of State; OLENE WALKER, Utah Lieutenant Governor; RALPH MUNRO, Washington Secretary of State; MIKE COONEY, Montana

Secretary of State; PETE T. CENARRUSA, Idaho Secretary of State; PHIL KEISLING,

Oregon Secretary of State; BETSY DAVIS BEAMER, Virginia, Secretary of the Commonwealth; KATHLEEN E. ARNOLD, Secretary of the District of Columbia; ERIC

CLARK, Mississippi Secretary of State; SCOTT MOORE, Nebraska Secretary of

State; JIM BENNETT, Alabama Secretary of State; ANTIONIO O. GARZA, JR., Texas

Secretary of State; SHARON PRIEST, Arkansas Secretary of State; JANE DEE

HULL, Arizona Secretary of State; ELAIN F. MARSHALL, North Carolina Secretary

of State; JOYCE HAZELTINE, South Dakota Secretary of State; JOAN ANDERSON

GROVE, Minnesota Secretary of State; CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Secretary

of State; PAUL D. PATE, Iowa Secretary of State; VICTORIA BUCKLEY, Colorado

Secretary of State; FRAN ULMER, Lieutenant Governor, State of Alaska; STEPHANIE GONZALES, New Mexico Secretary of State; WILLIAM F. GALVIN, Massachusetts Secretary of State; DEAN HELLER, Nevada Secretary of State; EDWIN J.

FREEL, Delaware Secretary of State; WILLIAM GARDNER, New Hampshire Secretary of State; LEWIS A. MASSEY, Georgia Secretary of State; YVETTE KANE,

Pennsylvania Secretary of State; JOHN T. WILLIS, Maryland Secretary of State;

BOB TAFT, Ohio Secretary of State; ALEXANDER F. TREADWELL, New York Secretary of State; MILES RAPOPORT, Connecticut Secretary of State; JAMES MILNE,

Vermont Secretary of State; KEN HECHLER, West Virginia Secretary of State;

RILEY DARNELL, Tennessee Secretary of State; DAN GWADOSKY, Maine Secretary

of State; JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island Secretary of State; REBECCA

MCDOWELL-COOK, Missouri Secretary of State; LONNA R. HOOKS, NEW JERSEY

SECRETARY OF STATE; DIANA J. OHMAN, Wyoming Secretary of State; SANDRA B.

MORTHAM, Florida Secretary of State; DOUGLAS LA FOLLETTE, Wisconsin SecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
31

retary of State; JIM MILES, South Carolina Secretary of State; W. FOX

MCKEITHEN, Louisiana Secretary of State; JOHN Y. BROWN III, Kentucky Secretary of State; RON THORNBAUGH, Kansas Secretary of State; TOM COLE, Oklahoma Secretary of State; AL JAEGER, North Dakota Secretary of State; GEORGE

H. RYAN, Illinois Secretary of State; SUE ANN GILROY, Indiana Secretary of

State; and MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii Secretary of State.

Mr. WALDEN. As for Florida, I notice one of my colleagues suggested that there was—the early projections were accurate, and

there was no reason to question them. And yet their own analysis

by the networks and by VNS later determined all kinds of problems with that analysis that led up to that projection, including a

VNS keypunch operator who had entered incorrectly voter count

data which had the effect of making it appear that Vice President

Gore had won 98 percent of the Duval County vote tabulated to

that time.

It’s clear there were problems. I’m not here to castigate those

who are the anchors getting it over the earpiece, trying to make

the best call they can. I think what we have to do is look at the

data that led up to that so we aren’t accidentally affecting the outcome of elections elsewhere and putting out bad information that’s

neither good for the broadcast and media nor for those who are

watching.

So, Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back the balance of my time

and thank you for your efforts on this hearing.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman.

I think for our final opening statement the Chair recognizes Mr.

Buyer, another new member of our committee.

Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You’re correct. Being a

new member of the committee, the years that I served here on

Armed Services and Judiciary we never had this practice of all

members of a committee speaking while we’ve invited witnesses to

come testify before us. If this is the culture of the Energy and Commerce Committee, obviously it’s one I don’t know about. If it’s a

common practice of this committee over the years, it’s one I find

distasteful. I find it distasteful because we’ve invited a lot of people

here to come testify at 11, and here it’s 1:30, and they have not

yet begun to testify.

Now maybe it’s members themselves, when they have the opportunity to speak in front of cameras, they get a little excited and

they want to pontificate. But I’m a little bothered by it.

The only comment that I am going to make is this: I’m bothered

by the rancor in this matter. Now whether it’s Republicans or

Democrats I’m bothered by it. Because there is one general concern

that all of us have to agree on. This comment about the first

amendment right, you know, we collectively have decided to live in

a Republic, not a democracy, under the rule of law to ensure that

our society has civil order. So even though we have a Bill of Rights,

none of those rights are truly absolute. So when someone begins to

act irresponsibly, it is an invitation for government intrusion.

So I’m bothered if someone operates in our society in whatever

industry, from Hollywood or to whomever, and they think that they

have certain rights that will protect them and therefore they can

act irresponsibly, I’m bothered. And I’m equally as bothered that

government then would somehow then try to step in and be intrusive. So I am anxious to hear from witnesses who have been very

32

patient. I want to thank you for doing that. Because I think you

also want to be responsible and accountable to yourselves.

Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair thanks the gentleman for yielding.

The Chair would point out to the gentleman, as a new member,

that it is the rule of the Energy and Commerce Committee to permit members to give opening statements. It is a right to speak.

There is, however, no obligation of any member to speak. Members

have the right to waive that right and to insert their written oral

statements into the record. The Chair has always encouraged members to do that, but we will always respect members’ rights under

the committee.

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

I thank the Chairman for providing the opportunity for this committee to exercise

its oversight responsibility and appreciate the efforts of the witnesses.

On election night, television news networks Incorrectly and prematurely reported

the results of the race for President. The networks heavy reliance on flawed data

provided by the Voter News Service and competition to declare results was an embarrassment to the networks and a disservice to their viewers.

Although, there is no evidence that the results reported by Voter News Service

and the television news networks were intentional or in any way deliberate attempt

to affect ongoing voting. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the network’s heavy

reliance on flawed data, their insatiable urge to be first, and the effect early and

inaccurate media reports have on voter turnout in states where polls have not yet

closed. In addition, that the errors so heavily skewed in one political direction ought

to raise questions about the fairness and accuracy of all the systems currently employed.

This is not the first time the networks have incorrectly predicted the outcome of

an election. Many New Hampshire residents and those who follow our state’s politics will recall that in 1996, the networks falsely predicted that the Democratic challenger had defeated incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Bob Smith.

I look forward to studying the proposed solutions to the problem and appreciate

the self-examination the networks and news services have undertaken. The leadership they have demonstrated in setting new guidelines for reporting election coverage encourages me to believe the events of last November will not be soon repeated.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I too watched television on election night and rode the

all night roller coaster on November 7, 2000. I recall my feelings of joy, disappointment, and feelings of great hope and happiness as the Networks changed the call

on Florida once again.

I too wish that the Networks had been 100% accurate in their initial projections

on election night, but both human and mechanical mistakes were made which compounded the problem. While technology has improved our lives in countless ways,

it has also given us a sense of entitlement to instant news, music and other forms

of content and information sometimes sacrificing the facts in order to break a story.

And while I think that is an issue that should be addressed, it is a discussion

for another day.

The networks should be held—and in my opinion—are being held accountable. I

am not of the opinion that these news organizations knowingly distributed false information to the public, and it is worth noting that news organizations are held to

the higher authority of public confidence and public opinion. It should also be said

that all networks have an interest in giving viewers the best possible product due

to the incredible amount of competition that exists in today’s news marketplace.

I am pleased that the networks worked hard on these studies and policed themselves in a responsible manner, because it is not easy to openly and publicly criticize

yourself. The American public deserves the best possible news service and each of

33

our broadcast witnesses has an incredible responsibility to protect the right of the

Free Press.

Lastly, it has been said that the news organizations acted in a biased nature that

suppressed votes in later time zones, specifically on the West Coast. Personally, I

would welcome the opportunity to discuss voter suppression in America today. If we

are to discuss these issues, then I would respectfully suggest that the witness list

be expanded to the thousands of voters who were disenfranchised throughout Florida and in St. Louis, Missouri in addition to the countless other locales across the

country which may have gone unreported. There is a vast difference between announcing winners and losers from exit polling data—which is the ultimate responsibility of the networks, not Congress—and the practices of intimidation and deception which unfortunately still permeate our electoral process. The problem here is

not the networks, but zealous political operatives who practice voter suppression as

a trade.

Again, I am pleased that the networks stepped forward to claim responsibility for

their actions and I plan to keep a close eye on the networks to make sure that they

live up to their promise of reforming the way elections are reported on in the future.

Coupled with that, however, I will do my part to ensure that each and every citizen

of this country has the right and ability to make their vote count in America. Thank

you and I yield back the balance of my time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, even before all the votes were counted in last year’s Presidential

election, Republican Members of Congress were calling press conferences, where

they recited their old mantra of a liberal media bias. They also went so far as describing a conspiracy on the part of the networks to ensure victory for Al Gore.

But, Mr. Chairman, what my friends on the other side of the aisle did not realize

at the time and what the facts of the evening soon revealed, was that perhaps the

largest media bias was taking place at the FOX News Channel. There, the first

cousin of Governor George W. Bush was calling the shots on which states went to

each of the candidates. If you want to talk about a conflict of interest, look no further than the fact that a blood relative of then-Governor Bush was the first to call

the election for the Republicans. John Ellis, George W. Bush’s first cousin, was manning the decision desk at Fox News, one of the nation’s major news organizations.

According to Ellis himself, he spoke with candidate George W. Bush five times

throughout election day. He also spoke several times to his other first cousin, Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Later in the evening it was Ellis who called the election first for Bush at 2:15

a.m. Within five minutes all the other networks followed suit. What Mr. Ellis and

the other networks did not realize was that it was really Mr. Gore that should have

been awarded the election. It wasn’t until many of the counties in Florida decided

not to accurately count all the votes cast on November 7, that Mr. Bush could be

declared the winner.

Since the Networks made this erroneous call at such a late hour, many people

around the country went to bed incorrectly assuming that George W. Bush was the

president-elect. The next morning, even after all the networks had retracted their

calls, the public perception was still that Bush was the President-elect and Gore

was seeking to overturn the results, rather than the fact that the contest between

the two candidates was too close to call. If the networks never called this election

for Bush in the early hours of November 8, it is my belief that the public would

have demanded a fair and accurate count in Florida, which I believe would have

made Al Gore our 43rd President.

Clearly mistakes were made on election night, and those mistakes had a huge impact on public opinion.

I am sure we can all agree that it is now the job of the networks and the Voter

News Service (VNS), through internal reviews that have been completed and now

must be implemented, to ensure that what happened last year never happens again.

But, if you think about it the networks first numbers were correct. Exit polls, which

measure a voter’s intent rather than what was later counted, showed a clear victory

for Al Gore. So rather than debating whether the media is liberal or conservative,

what we in Congress should really be focusing on is the fact that not all American’s

votes were counted.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair is now pleased to welcome our first

panel. As Mr. Buyer said, I apologize for the long delay, but those

34

are the rules of our committee. And the Chair under the rules of

the committee must inform the witnesses, of course, that this is an

investigatory hearing. As such, it is the custom—in fact, tradition

and practice of our committee when we are in this mode to take

our testimony under oath. So that I will ask the witnesses in— prior to your testimony to in fact stand with me while I administer

the oath.

The first witness on the first panel will be Ms. Joan Konner, a

Professor of Journalism and Dean Emerita of the Graduate School

of Journalism, Columbia University, New York, New York.

Ms. Konner, I welcome you. You are aware that the committee

is holding an investigatory hearing and in doing so the practice is

to take testimony under oath. Do you have any objection to taking—giving your testimony other oath?

Ms. KONNER. I do not.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair advises you under the rules of the

House and the rules of the committee you’re entitled to be advised

by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony today?

Ms. KONNER. I do not.

Chairman TAUZIN. In that case, would you please indeed raise

your right hand; and I will swear you in.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TAUZIN. You are now under oath. You can now give a

5-minute summary of your written statement, and we welcome it

right now.

TESTIMONY OF JOAN KONNER, PROFESSOR OF JOURNALISM

AND DEAN EMERITA, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM,

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Ms. KONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of

the committee. I am Joan Konner, former dean of the Columbia

Graduate School of Journalism and a professor there now. Before

going to Columbia as dean, I was a long-time television producer

in commercial and public television. I worked in news and public

affairs for NBC News for 12 years and in public television for 12

years. I have been a news and documentary writer, reporter, producer, executive producer, a program director, a vice president of

the public television station in New York, and president of an independent television production company.

I was asked by CNN, along with Jim Risser and Ben

Wattenberg, to look at what went wrong in its television coverage

of the Presidential election 2000. Our report, ‘‘Television’s Performance on Election Night 2000,’’ a report to CNN, has been submitted

in full to the committee; and I’ve been told that it will appear as

part of the record of these hearings.

Chairman TAUZIN. Would the gentlelady suspend just a minute.

She reminds that I need to do that. And at this point, the Chair

would ask that the reports of all the networks and RTI and VNS

be made an official part of the record of this hearing. Is there any

objection? Without objection it is so ordered.

I thank the gentlelady. Proceed.

Ms. KONNER. The CNN report and all of the other reports that

have been issued about election night reporting recognize that

35

something went terribly wrong just as everyone, including the public, recognizes that many things went wrong with the election process itself. CNN executives, correspondents, and producers themselves describe election night coverage as a debacle, a disaster, and

a fiasco; and in our report we agree.

I would like to address these remarks to two main points, the

first is to the context of our report and the second to some of its

substance.

First about the context. It is important to note at the outset that

this is a report on journalism. We as journalists and academics

were asked by CNN to undertake an independent review and to answer the questions: What happened on Election Night 2000? Why

did it happen and what might be done to prevent such mistakes

from happening again? Our inquiry, judgment, and recommendations were based on the ideals, the principles, and the best practices of journalism.

The report should be taken as an independent peer review of the

quality of the journalism, not as a political or legal opinion or a

statement of public policy. We believe that CNN should be commended for being the only network to invite a wholly independent

outside evaluation of its events of its election-day coverage in order

to help improve its performance in the future.

Our panel’s criticism of CNN’s performance that night was based

on journalistic principles stated in the report that the central purpose of a free press and a democratic society is to provide the public with information upon which the people can form intelligent decisions concerning important public matters on which they have

the power to act; and that public affairs journalism is the pursuit

of truth in the public interest and its major values are accuracy,

fairness, balance, responsibility, accountability, independence, integrity, and timeliness.

Those are the standards that informed our judgments, and they

are the standards that define professionalism according to the written codes of most mainstream organizations and the journalists

that work for them. We believe that all the journalists involved in

the election coverage at CNN subscribe to those principles. Nevertheless, we have concluded that because of several key factors,

CNN along with the other television networks failed in their core

mission to inform the public accurately about the outcome of the

election. Specifically, CNN and the other networks failed in reporting election results in Florida which turned out to hold the key to

the outcome of the election.

We found and reported that the faulty journalism resulted from

excessive speed and hypercompetition, combined with overconfidence in experts and a reliance on increasingly dubious polls. We

have stated that the desire to be first or at least not to be consistently behind the others led the networks to make calls unwisely

based on sketchy and sometimes mistaken information. We reported an impulse to speed over accuracy. And we attributed that

impulse to the business imperatives of television news to win the

highest ratings, which is not a journalistic standard but a commercial standard.

Ratings, that is the size of the audience, drive the price of commercials; and the commercials determine the bottom-line profits of

36

the corporations that own the network. Our report found several

flaws in the system setup to cover the election. We questioned the

overall consent of the Voter News Service, which was the single

source of information on data on which all the networks relied.

Voter News Service was set up as a partnership among competing

news organizations.

This unusual collaboration among competitors was conceived

principally as a cost-cutting measure, although pooling resources

enabled the networks to greatly expand their polling reach. We believe relying on a single source of information contradicts wellknown, deeply entrenched best journalistic practices. Relying on a

single source eliminates the checks and balances built into a competitive vote-gathering and vote system. It eliminates the possibility of a second source for validating key and possible conflicting

information.

The concept of VNS also effectively eliminates competition in the

market for the establishment of a second system, and it might also

stifle journalistic enterprise. We further question the purpose of

then introducing the element of competition through independent

decision desks at each of the networks, all of whom rely on the

same data and information received at exactly the same time.

What results is a speed trap in which all of the networks are doing

their complicated calculations under maximum competitive pressure in minimum time, usually making their so-called projections

minutes apart.

The compulsion to be first led CNN and others to project results

without checking other possible sources of information. At the time

the call for Bush was made, there were, in fact, two other sources

available: the Associated Press, which does its own vote count, and

the official returns of the States.

We have questioned what purpose this hypercompetition serves,

either journalistic or commercial. It does not serve the public, the

core mission of journalism. Our inquiry also indicated serious flaws

in the polling methods used by VNS, including exit polling, outdated polling models, and outdated technology. We note, as others

have, that polls inadequately take into account the growing number of absentee ballots and early mailed ballots or the variations

caused by a wide variety of factors on non-responses to the quality

of the questionnaire. We know that polls in general are statistical

calculations, not factual realities. And as such they are an imperfect measure of voter intent and voting, especially in close elections.

Our recommendations include the following: that exit polling no

longer be used to project or call winners of States; and that exit

polling be used for analysis only; that returns from sample or key

precincts no longer be used for projecting or calling winners. We

believe that model precincts are subject to too many errors and

could lead to faulty calls. We recommend that all calls be based on

actual vote counts and that no calls be made in States where polls

are still open. We recommend that no call be made until all available sources of information are checked.

We recommend that the Voter News Service be reexamined, repaired, or reinvented and that a second service be commissioned to

conduct parallel national polling. We note that many of these recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
37

ommendations would probably slow down the process of reporting,

and we believe that is a good outcome. We believe that slowing

down would improve network performance and would visibly demonstrate that accuracy was more important than speed in reporting

on elections.

Our report expresses the view that the mistakes in the reporting

of the Presidential election, especially in Florida, were damaging to

journalism and to the country. The erroneous early call for Gore

and a later call for Bush declaring him prematurely the next President based on faulty numbers undermined the credibility of the

news organizations and distorted the real result of the election at

that point.

Some have charged that the networks—some have charged the

networks with bias in their reporting, that is, deliberately or unwittingly calling or withholding the results of the race to benefit

one candidate over another. We found no evidence to support that

view. We also found no convincing evidence that calls made before

polls were closed within a State or in another State have an impact

on voter turn out.

All of CNN’s election coverage was made with the best journalistic intentions. But mistakes were made, and they have, along

with other networks, contributed to the public atmosphere of rancor during the first post-election events.

We thank CNN for being willing to undergo this painful process

of external peer review, a familiar and accepted path to course correction in many other professions. CNN has already announced policy changes that will help prevent such a lapse in the future. It

demonstrates a serious commitment to more stringent standards in

covering elections and self-restraint, an example, we hope, other

networks will follow.

[The prepared statement of Joan Konner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOAN KONNER, PROFESSOR OF JOURNALISM AND DEAN

EMERITA, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

I am Joan Konner, professor of journalism at the Columbia Graduate School of

Journalism and former dean of the school from 1988 to 1997. Before going to Columbia, as dean, I was a longtime television producer in commercial and public television. I worked in news and public affairs for NBC News for 12 years and in public

television for 12 years. I have been a news and documentary writer, reporter and

producer, an executive producer, program director, vice president of the public television station in New York and President of an independent television production

company.

I was asked by CNN along with Jim Risser and Ben Wattenberg to look into what

went wrong in its television coverage if the Presidential Election 2000. Our report

‘‘Television’s Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report to CNN’’ has been submitted in full to the Committee, and I have been told it will appear as part of the

record of these hearings.

The CNN report, and all the other reports that have been issued about election

night reporting, recognize that something went terribly wrong, just as everyone, including the public, recognizes that something went wrong with the election itself.

CNN executives, correspondents, and producers themselves described election night

coverage as ‘‘a debacle,’’ a ‘‘disaster’’ a ‘‘fiasco.’’ In our report we agree.

I would like to address these remarks to two main points. The first is the context

of this report; and second, to some of the substance of the report.

First, about context:

It is important to note at the outset that this is report on journalism. We, as journalists and academics, were asked by CNN to undertake an independent review and

to answer the questions: What happened on Election Night 2000? Why did it happen? And what might be done to prevent such mistakes from happening again?

38

Our inquiry, judgements and recommendations were based on the ideals, the principals and the best practices of journalism. The report should be taken as an independent peer review of the quality of the journalism, not a political or legal opinion

or a statement of public policy. We believe that CNN should be commended for

being the only network to invite a wholly independent, outside evaluation of the

events of its election day coverage in order to help improve its performance in the

future.

Our panel’s criticism of CNN’s performance that night was based on journalistic

principals stated in the report:

. . . that the central purpose of a free press in a democratic society is to provide the

public with information upon which the people can form intelligent decisions

concerning important public matters on which they have the power to act;

. . . that public affairs journalism is the pursuit of truth in the public interest, and

its major components are accuracy, fairness, balance, responsibility, accountability, independence. integrity and timeliness.

Those are the standards that informed our judgements and they are the standards that define professionalism, according to the written codes of most mainstream

organizations and the journalists who work for them. We believe that all the journalists involved in election coverag at CNN subscribe to those principals. Nevertheless, we concluded that because of several key factors, CNN, along with the other

television networks, failed in their core mission, to inform the public accurately

about the outcome of the election. Specifically CNN and the other networks failed

in reporting election results in Florida, which turned out to hold the key to the outcome of the election.

We found and reported that the faulty journalism resulted from excessive speed

and hyper-competition, combined with an overconfidence in experts and a reliance

on increasingly dubious polls. We stated that the desire to be first, or at least not

to be consistently behind the others, led the networks to make calls, unwisely, based

on sketchy and sometimes mistaken information. We reported an impulse to speed

over accuracy, and we attributed that impulse to the business imperatives of television news—to win the highest ratings, which is not a journalistic standard but a

commercial standard. Ratings, that is the size of the audience, drive the price of the

commercials, and commercials determine the bottom line profits of the corporations

that own the news networks.

Our report found several flaws in the system set up to cover the election.

We questioned the overall concept of the Voters News Service, which was the single source of information and data, on which all the networks relied. VNS was set

up as a partnership among the competing news organizations. This unusual collaboration among competitors was conceived principally as a cost-cutting measure, although pooling resources enabled the networks to greatly expand their polling

reach.

In our report we say that relying on a single source of information contradicts

well-known, best journalistic practices. Relying on a single source eliminates the

checks and balances built into a competitive vote-gathering and polling system. It

eliminates the possibility of a second source for validating key and possibly conflicting information. The concept of VNS also effectively eliminates competition in

the market for the establishment of a second system, and it might also stifle journalistic enterprise.

We further question the purpose of then introducing the element of competition

through independent decision desks, all of who rely on this same data and information received at exactly the same time. What results is a speed trap in which all

the networks are doing their complicated calculations under maximum competitive

pressure in minimum time, usually making their so-called competitive projections

minutes apart. The compulsion to be first led CNN and others to project results

without checking other possible sources of information. At the time the call for Bush

was made, there were in fact, two other sources available, the Associated Press,

which does its own vote count, and the official returns of the state.

We question what purpose this hyper-competition serves, either journalistic or

commercial. It clearly did not serve the public, the core mission of journalism.

Our inquiry also indicated serious flaws in the polling methods used by VNS, including exit polling, outdated polling models and outdated technology. We note, as

have others, that polls inadequately take into account the growing number of absentee ballots and early mailed ballots, or the variations caused by a wide variety of

factors from non-responses to the quality of the questionnaire. We note that polls,

in general, are statistical calculations, not factual realities; and as such, that they

are an imperfect measure of voter intent and actual voting, especially in close elections.

Our recommendations included the following:

39

. . . that exit polling no longer be used to project or call winners of states; and that

exit polling be used for analysis only;

. . . that returns from sample, or key, precincts no longer be used for projecting or

calling winners. We believe that model precincts are subject to many errors and

can lead to faulty calls.

. . . We recommend that all calls be based on actual counted returns;

. . . and that no calls be made in states where polls are still open;

. . . We recommend that no call be made until all available sources of information are

checked.

We recommend that the Voters News Service be reexamined, repaired or reinvented, and that a second service be commissioned to conduct parallel national

polling.

We note that many of these recommendations would probably slow down the process of reporting and we believe that is a good outcome. We believe that slowing

down would improve network performance and would visibly demonstrate that accuracy was more important than speed in reporting on elections.

Our report expresses the view that the mistakes in the reporting of the Presidential Election 2000, specifically in Florida, were damaging to journalism and to

the country. The erroneous early call for Gore and the later call for Bush, declaring

him prematurely the next President based on faulty numbers, undermined the

credibility of the news organizations and distorted the real result of the election at

that point. Some have charged the networks with bias in their reporting, that is deliberately of unwittingly calling or withholding the results of a race to benefit one

candidate over another. We found no evidence to support that view. We also found

no convincing evidence that calls made before polls are closed within a state or in

another state have an impact on voter turnout.

All of CNN’s election coverage was made with the best journalistic intentions, but

mistakes were made, and they, along with other networks, created the public atmosphere for the painful post-election events.

We thank CNN for being willing to undergo this somewhat painful process of external peer review, the familiar and accepted path to course correction in many

other professions. CNN has already announced policy changes that will help prevent

such a lapse in the future. It demonstrates a serious commitment to more stringent

reporting standards in covering elections and self-restraint, an example we hope

other networks will follow.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Ms. Konner.

And now, Mr. Risser, if you will stand with me. You are aware

the committee is holding an investigative hearing and when doing

so it is the practice to take the testimony under oath. Do you have

an objection to taking testimony under oath?

Mr. RISSER. No, sir.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair advises you that under the rules of

the House and the rules of this committee you have the right to

be advised by counsel. Do you wish to be advised by counsel during

your testimony?

Mr. RISSER. No I don’t.

Chairman TAUZIN. Raise your right hand as I swear you in.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TAUZIN. Sir, you are now under oath. You may now

proceed with the summary of your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES V. RISSER, RETIRED DIRECTOR,

KNIGHT FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM, STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Mr. RISSER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my

name is James V. Risser. I am the former director of Stanford University’s John S. Knight Fellowships for Professional Journalists,

which is a midcareer sabbatical program for professional print and

broadcast journalists. I retired from that position and Stanford faculty in September. Before going to Stanford in 1985, I worked for

20 years as a journalist, including 15 years here in Washington

where I was the bureau chief of the Des Moines Register.

40

As you know, I am one of the members of this committee. You’ve

just heard from Joan Konner. My statement is not long but I’ll try

to make it even a little shorter since it might repeat some of what

she said. As you know, our report released on February 22 concentrates on the most obvious problem of election night, the two

calls and two retractions made by CNN and others with regard to

Florida. But we believe our findings and recommendations, both directed specifically to CNN, go farther than just the Florida case in

demonstrating more broadly what is wrong with the current system of reporting election returns. We also believe they apply in

general to the networks, not to CNN alone by any means.

I take CNN at its word that it prefers being accurate over being

first in the reporting of the State-by-State returns. That’s the only

proper stance for an all-news network that wants to keep its journalism at a high professional level and its integrity in tact. The

fact that CNN set up our committee shows they do care about this.

But at the same time, intense competition does exist if the television news business and the system created by CNN and the other

networks for election night allowed speed to gain the upper hand.

The networks believed that they could be both fast and accurate,

but on this election night at least they were wrong. The reasons

that they were wrong were—and again to summarize some things

that Miss Konner also just hit on—they relied on one source they

had jointly funded, Voter News Service. The figures and data they

got from VNS were not always accurate. Exit polls certainly were

not accurate enough and were perhaps less accurate than in past

elections due to nonresponses and due to the rise in absentee voting. At the same time, vote tabulation errors were made.

Third, the network decision teams who analyzed VNS data and

decided when a network should call a State were unable to or at

least did not adequately scrutinize that data. On the decision team

chaired by CNN and CBS, there was a failure to consult other key

sources. This combination of factors led the networks to call Florida

twice and retract twice.

As a result, the networks suffered a grievous blow to their reputation for delivering timely and accurate news. It turned out that

voters could not, as CBS’s Dan Rather assured them, take their

networks’ calls to the bank. Instead, the networks found themselves having to twice eat crow as CNN’s Jeff Greenfield said.

All of this for no real good reason, our committee concluded. We

believe Americans are more interested in having the election returns reported accurately than they are in whether one network

comes in a few minutes ahead of the other. Very few people know

at the time which network is coming in first and virtually none of

them could remember today. I am one who believes strongly in

journalistic competition; and I am also aware if one network consistently came in far behind the others, its audience share might

suffer. But what we’re talking about, at least in regard to this election, is a matter of a few minutes’ difference here and there in reporting the winner of a State and viewers simply don’t care about

that.

Our committee concluded there are serious doubts about the validity of using exit polls to project winners and that the Presidential election is a sacred enough rite of democracy that nothing

41

more than accurate reporting is acceptable. As we said in our report, ‘‘Exit polls, whether accurate or not, are self-generated news.

Their use by television networks to project election results is an attempt to forecast what is not yet known, the actual vote count, but

which will be known within a few hours when the votes are counted.’’

Thus we think the networks ought to slow down and get it right.

You have heard already our recommendations to CNN and by implication to other networks the stopping of the use of exit polls to

project or call winners, instituting a system of calling winners done

only from actual counted returns in which a State could not be said

to have gone for a particular candidate until enough votes have not

been counted to make the outcome in that State a certainty. No

State should be called when the polls remain open there. Exit polling, if continued, ought to be studied to make it more accurate. It

is a valuable tool for learning a lot things about the electorate besides just how they voted.

Voter News Service should be fixed if its use is to be continued.

Other competing sources should be drawn upon as well. CNN’s decision team should be strengthened and should adopt higher standards based on more information before recommending a call to the

network. We also ask that CNN and others make an effort to inform viewers what is going on, that is, how it arrives at its decision

to call States, where the information comes from, what the uncertainties may be and so forth.

And finally, CNN—and I would hope others—should simply take

more time to get it right, to show by action that the networks truly

favor accuracy over speed and do not wish to impinge improperly

on the election process. CNN’s own representatives can explain for

you the response they made to our report. While it does not adopt

everything, we suggest it goes a very long way toward meeting

many of our most important findings and recommendations and

would put CNN on the road toward doing the kind of job in the

next election that I am sure it wanted to do in this one. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of James V. Risser follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES V. RISSER, RETIRED DIRECTOR, KNIGHT

FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM, STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is James V. Risser. I am

the former director of Stanford University’s John S. Knight Fellowships for Professional Journalists, which is a mid-career sabbatical program for professional print

and broadcast journalists. I retired from that position and from the Stanford communication faculty last September.

Before going to Stanford in 1985, I worked for 20 years as a journalist, including

15 years here in Washington where I was the bureau chief for The Des Moines Register.

I am one of three members of the independent committee that CNN asked to investigate and write a report on the problems that CNN experienced on Election

Night 2000 in reporting the returns and the outcome of the presidential election.

In our report, which was released on February 2, we concentrated on the most

obvious problem of Election Night—the two calls and the two retractions made by

CNN with regard to Florida.

But we believe that our findings and our recommendations, both directed specifically to CNN, go farther than just the Florida case in demonstrating more broadly

what is wrong with the current system of reporting election returns. We also believe

that they apply in general to the networks, not to CNN alone by any means.

The committee has access to the report, so permit me to summarize a few points

that strike me as the most important.

42

I take CNN at its word that it prefers being accurate over being first in the reporting of state-by-state returns. That is the only proper stance for an all-news network that wants to keep its journalism at a high professional level and its integrity

intact. The fact that CNN set up a truly independent committee to evaluate its performance shows that it cares about this, as does its response since our report was

issued.

But at the same time competition—intense competition—does exist in the television news business. And the system created by CNN and the other networks for

Election Night allowed speed to gain the upper hand.

The networks believed that they could be both fast and accurate but, on this Election Night at least, they were wrong.

The reasons that they were wrong were:

First, they all relied on just one source which they had jointly funded, Voter News

Service, to give them results from exit polls, sample precinct returns, and countyby-county vote totals.

Second, VNS figures were not always correct. Exit polls were not accurate enough,

perhaps less accurate than in past elections due to non-responses and due to the

rise in absentee voting. Also, vote tabulation errors were made.

Third, network ‘‘decision teams,’’ who analyzed VNS data and decided when their

network should call a state, were unable to, or at least did not, adequately scrutinize that data. At least at the decision team shared by CNN and CBS, there was

a failure to consult other available sources such as Associated Press vote tabulations

and the vote counts available on the web pages of state secretaries of state.

This combination of factors led the television news networks to call Florida for

Vice President Gore (before polls had closed in the western part of the state), retract

that call, call Florida and the election for Governor Bush, and then retract that call.

As a result, the networks suffered a grievous blow to their reputations for delivering timely and accurate news. It turned out that viewers could not, as CBS’s Dan

Rather had assured them, take the networks’ election calls ‘‘to the bank.’’ Instead,

the networks found themselves having to twice eat crow, as CNN’s Jeff Greenfield

said.

All of this for no good reason. Americans are much more interested in having the

election returns reported accurately than they are in whether one network comes

in a few minutes ahead of the other in reporting the results. Very few people know

at the time which network is coming in first, and even fewer of them would remember today.

I am one who believes strongly in journalistic competition, and I am also aware

that if one network consistently came in far behind the others in reporting election

results, its audience share might suffer. But what we’re talking about really is a

matter of a few minutes difference here and there in reporting the winner of a state,

and viewers don’t care about that.

Our committee concluded that there are serious doubts about the validity of using

exit polls to project the winners in each state and that the presidential election is

a sacred enough rite of American democracy that nothing less than accurate reporting is acceptable.

As we said in our report, ‘‘Exit polls, whether accurate or not, are self-generated

news. Their use by television networks to project election results is an attempt to

forecast what is not yet known—the actual vote count—but which will be known

within a few hours when the votes are counted.’’

We think the networks ought to slow down and get it right.

We recommended to CNN, and by implication to other networks, that:

The use of exit polling to project or call winners should be stopped.

The calling of winners should be done from actual counted returns, and a state

should not be said to have gone for a particular candidate until enough votes have

been counted to make the outcome in that state a certainty. The use of so-called

‘‘sample precinct’’ returns should be limited to guidance in looking at and evaluating

actual counted returns.

No states should be called when any polls remain open in that state.

Exit polling, which can provide very valuable information about the electorate,

should, if continued, be carefully studied to make it more accurate.

Voter News Service should be fixed, if the partners decide to continue its use, and

other competing sources of information should be drawn upon by the networks.

CNN’s decision team should be strengthened and should adopt higher standards,

based on more information, before recommending a call to the network.

The network should make a greater effort to inform viewers about what is going

on—that is, how it arrives at decisions to call states, where its information comes

from, what the uncertainties may be, and so forth.

43

And finally CNN, and I would hope others, should simply take more time to get

it right, to show by its actions that it truly favors accuracy over speed and that it

does not wish to impinge improperly on the election process.

CNN’s representatives can explain for you their response to our report. While it

does not adopt everything we suggested, it goes a long way toward meeting many

of our most important findings and recommendations and would put CNN on the

road toward doing the kind of job in the next election that I’m sure it wanted to

do in this one.

Thank you.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Risser.

Our next witnesses will be Ben Wattenberg, certifying senior fellow of the American Enterprise Institute here in Washington DC.

Ben, if you will help me through this. You are aware that the committee is holding an investigative hearing and when doing so it has

the practice of taking testimony under oath.

Mr. WATTENBERG. Yes, sir.

Chairman TAUZIN. Do you have any objection to testifying under

oath?

Mr. WATTENBERG. I do not.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair then advises you that under the

rules of the House and the rules of the committee you are entitled

to be advised by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel

during your testimony?

Mr. WATTENBERG. I do not.

Chairman TAUZIN. In that case, please raise your right hand and

I’ll swear you in.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TAUZIN. Sir, you are under oath and you may now give

a summary of your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF BEN J. WATTENBERG, SENIOR FELLOW,

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

Mr. WATTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. I am Ben Wattenberg, I am a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Over the years I have been active in

radio, newspaper, magazines, radio—excuse me, television, book

publishing as a reporter or columnist, an editor, a publisher, and

an author of a number of books about politics and demographics.

I wanted to begin my testimony by reading the first paragraph of

the preamble of our report, which has been alluded to; but I

thought it might be useful because it pretty much sums up the feeling of the three of us.

And it goes this way: ‘‘On Election Day 2000, television news organizations staged a collective drag race on the crowded highway

of democracy, recklessly endangering the electorial process, the political life of the country, and their own credibility, all for reasons

that may be conceptually flawed and commercially questionable.’’

And I would just like to dwell for a moment on that last part,

‘‘conceptually flawed and commercially questionable,’’ because as

we got into this study I know for myself I kept asking myself what

on earth are they doing and why are they doing it? And as we all

have heard of the motto ‘‘no pain no gain,’’ what the networks were

doing it seems to me was no gain and plenty of pain. They weren’t

getting anything out of it. They were competing with themselves to

44

try to play beat-the-clock in a way that was ultimately truly senseless in my judgment.

Now I would like to present a thought to the committee today

that goes beyond our report and to the question and beyond some

of our answers as to what can be done about it, that Joan Konner

and Jim Risser have described clearly the items we mention in the

report. I have a further thought and there’s a short statement

about it, which I would like to read excerpts from.

Following the Election 2000 fiasco, the networks appeared to

have put in place procedures that will deal with the problems of

early release of State results, but the Presidential election is a national election. There has been no satisfactory agreement regarding

the reporting of votes in early time zones which may influence

States with later polling times. Unless such an agreement is

reached on the so-called East-West problem, the Nation may suffer

through yet another late election-night debacle in years to come.

A number of solutions have been examined, these include uniform poll-closing times, 24-hour voting, full-weekend voting, national holiday voting. All, to be sure, make some sense but they are

awful complex.

In the aftermath—so I want—I have come to try to think this

thing through as to how this second potential electorial iceberg can

be avoided. I think that CNN and other networks have dealt with

the State problem; they have not dealt with the national problem,

and they are keenly concerned, as they should be, appropriately

with first amendment problems. It seems to me that as I understand it in the aftermath of Florida there will be enough Federal

legislation sending money to the States to modernize their

electorial systems.

Now, is there a way to use this vehicle to simply resolve the

East-West problem? And it would seem to me—to me it seems so.

Overall, States already hold votes. We were not offered the results

of absentee and early voting ballots until the polls closed weeks or

days later after those votes had been cast. The vote of a voter who

casts his ballot at 7 a.m. is not released, typically, until 12 hours

later at 7 p.m. when the poll close. So my thought is that these

new Federal grants, should they come about, be made conditional:

That the non-Western States would not get grant money if they did

not hold their vote release until the close of West Coast polling

times.

The networks seem to me duly chastened regarding the promiscuous use of exit polls for projection purposes and would then have

no early raw votes to project from. And because the votes would not

be available in the first place, there would seem to be no first

amendment problem. It seems to me this offers a simpler form of

getting at this problem that many people on this panel—and I’m

sure that the network executives and that our panel—have investigated. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ben J. Wattenberg follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEN J. WATTENBERG, SENIOR FELLOW, AMERICAN

ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

By calling Florida wrong twice—first for Al Gore, then for George W. Bush—television networks hit an avoidable iceberg that had been on their radar screen for

many years. This blunder contributed mightily to the confusion and rancor that folVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
45

lowed, which hasn’t fully subsided. Attention has been paid; that iceberg won’t be

hit again. But there is another one looming—bigger, still ignored—that should be

addressed by Congress.

After the election, in an act of corporate courage, CNN commissioned an independent panel to investigate what went wrong on that infamous night. Along with

two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner James Risser and Joan Konner, former dean of the

Columbia School of Journalism, I was asked to serve on that panel. CNN President

Tom Johnson gave us the opportunity to question whomever we wished, to obtain

any documents we wanted and to write a report that would be made public.

The report begins, ‘‘On Election Day 2000, television news organizations staged

a collective drag race on the crowded highway of democracy, recklessly endangering

the electoral process, the political life of the country, and their own credibility, all

for reasons that may be conceptually flawed and commercially questionable.’’

CNN has examined our report and others; the material is on the CNN Web site.

They have responded with a list of reforms. These include not using exit polls for

projections in close races, not projecting a winner in a state if the balloting shows

that there is less than a 1-percent margin and not projecting the winner in a state

until all the polls are closed within that state.

In short, the early projection of statewide results will be slowed down appreciably.

Such reforms, by CNN and the other networks, should take care of any Florida-like

situations in the future. But that leaves the rest of the country. Let me go beyond

our report.

Americans hold about a million separate elections in the course of a four-year

cycle. Only one, for president, is national and continental, albeit conducted indirectly through separate winner-take-all contests. In America, for practical purposes,

that presidential election includes four time zones.

The case has been made, passionately, that early reporting of states in the East

influences voting in the West. Democrats were outraged in 1980 when the networks

called the presidential race for Ronald Reagan early in the evening. That announcement, said Democrats, depressed Democratic turnout, negatively influencing some

congressional races as well as other ‘‘down-ticket’’ offices and referenda. In 2000, it

was the Republicans who were outraged, claiming that early state calls for Gore depressed Republican turnout in the Florida Panhandle (which is in a different time

zone than the rest of the state), as well as in western states.

Or consider the 2000 election if the electoral math had worked out somewhat differently. Republicans might have claimed that closely contested races in Oregon and

Washington would have gone Republican if the networks had not started talking

about Gore’s winning ways in the East. (GOP Sen. Slade Gorton lost in Washington

by only 2,229 votes.)

Clearly, as the networks now concede, an election jurisdiction with two time

zones, such as Florida, shouldn’t be called until all polls are closed. Why, then,

should a national race be called before that national jurisdiction has all its polls

closed?

In the early 1980s, angry congressional hearings were held. Unanimous resolutions were passed asking the networks to exercise restraint for a couple of hours

every four years during a delicate moment in the democratic cycle. The networks

refused. They had First Amendment rights! No one was going to tell them how to

cover an election—certainly not politicians.

The academic judgments on the matter of early counting vary widely. It is not

known whether early election calling significantly influences voting behavior while

the polls are open. But surely there may be a small effect. Florida taught Americans

that small numbers of votes can have enormous leverage and incendiary effect in

a nation whose interest groups have an all-purpose slogan: ‘‘It’s Not Fair.’’

CNN and other networks have endorsed ‘‘uniform poll closing’’ legislation. This

would jiggle ballot hours and daylight savings time in order to get Americans voting

together in real time. It is a complex solution.

In the aftermath of Florida, there is an easier way, fully respectful of First

Amendment rights. It is quite apparent that there will be a new law sending money

to the states to modernize their election systems. Hang the chads! Death to the dimpled ballots!

But such monies should be conditioned, as are most federal grants to states. The

states should get the funds only if they don’t release ballot counts until polls close

on the West Coast, just as if this were one large country with four time zones. That

condition, coupled with network restraints on early exit poll use, would avoid the

next iceberg.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Wattenberg.

46

Our final member of this panel is Mr. Paul Biemer, the Research

Triangle Institute, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, formerly introduced originally by the vice president of our committee,

Mr. Burr. He asked me, by the way, Mr. Biemer, to ask you if you

were named after the BMW or was the BMW named after you.

Mr. BIEMER. I wasn’t named after a BMW.

Chairman TAUZIN. Mr. Biemer, as is our custom of the committee

when holding an investigative hearing of the committee, the practice has been to take the testimony under oath. Do you have any

objection to testifying under oath?

Mr. BIEMER. No, I do not.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair advises you under the rules of the

House and the rules of the committee you are entitled to be advised

by counsel. Do you wish to be advised by counsel during your testimony today?

Mr. BIEMER. No.

Chairman TAUZIN. In that case, please raise your right hand and

I will swear you in.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TAUZIN. You are under oath sir and if you will please

summarize your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF PAUL BIEMER, RESEARCH TRIANGLE

INSTITUTE

Mr. BIEMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Paul Biemer. I am a senior—— Chairman TAUZIN. I don’t think your mike is on.

Mr. BIEMER. Does this work?

Chairman TAUZIN. We will switch mikes. That is one of the reasons I’m asking the committee administration to help us high-tech

this committee room.

Mr. WATTENBERG. Do I get it back later?

Mr. BIEMER. We will share. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members

of the committee. My name is Paul Biemer. I am a senior statistician at the Research Triangle Institute. I hold a Ph.D. In statistics

and have 23 years of experience in server methodology in statistics.

The Research Triangle Institute is a not-for-profit research organization located near Raleigh, North Carolina.

In December 2000, the Voter News Service board of managers

contracted with RTI to review VNS’s data collection procedures, estimation methodology, and other operations. The purpose of this review is to provide an independent scientific assessment of the

causes for the mistaken calls in the Florida Presidential vote and

to make recommendations for improving the election-day forecasting methodology to avoid mistaken calls in future elections.

RTI assembled a team of 16 senior statisticians and server methodologists to conduct this review, including myself. None of us had

any significant prior knowledge of or connection with VNS operations, nor any experience with election-day voting process prior to

this review. The scope of our review was confined to six areas, precinct sampling methods, preelection research methods, projection

models and calculations, data collection procedures, quality control

procedures, and an audit of the information in the VNS report

dated September 8, 2000.

47

Our review found the VNS methodology to be generally statistically sound and adheres to good statistical practices in many

areas. However, there were several areas where their methodology

can be improved. We found no evidence of political biases in their

procedures and operations. However, we did find some evidence of

potentially important statistical biases.

And our findings are as follows: VNS’s methods for estimating

the total vote, including absentee and early voters, are subject to

potentially serious statistical bias. VNS can make better use of the

available data on past elections with regard to absentee and early

voters to reduce this bias. The exit poll samples are too small for

producing accurate State-level results and for providing unbiased

ratio estimates of the candidate vote-shares. The exit poll nonresponse rate was 49 percent. We believe this is a potentially important source of statistical bias in the model projections.

We found the quality control procedures to be adequate for most

situations. However, there are still opportunities for important errors to enter the system and dramatically change the election results. The quality control methods for ensuring that accurate data

is received from precinct and county reporters appear to be inadequate, particularly for close races. The measures of uncertainty reported on the decision screens sometimes do not reflect potentially

important sources of error in the VNS system. Thus the true uncertainty in the estimates may be understated. The information provided of the decision screens is prone to misinterpretation and the

rules used for election decisionmaking are inappropriate, given the

continual flow of data into the process.

In summary, we believe that the errors that led to the Gore call

in Florida and then the late-night shift to Bush were the products

of a number of system errors that tended to work in concert at various points in the evening toward favoring one candidate over the

other. Stricter quality controls and quality standards could prevent

this from occurring in future elections. The measures of uncertainty provided on the decision screens underestimate the true

total error in the estimates. Thus the risk that an election analyst

will call an election erroneously could be substantially higher than

indicated by the information on the decision screens. The complexity and the amount of information provided on the screens increase the risk of the misinterpretation of the election results.

Finally, we developed five key recommendations for VNS. One,

improve the methodology for estimating the effect of absentee votes

on estimates of the candidate vote differential; two, improve the

methodology for estimating the outstanding votes for candidates

needed to win an election; three, improve the measures of uncertainty for key election estimators to more fully reflect the total variation and statistical biases in the process; four, improve the quality control systems to quickly and reliably signal the occurrence of

an error; and, five, develop better guidelines and decision rules for

deciding to either make a call or wait for additional data.

[The prepared statement of Paul Biemer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL BIEMER, RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE

In December 2000, the Voter News Service (VNS) Board of Managers contracted

with Research Triangle Institute, a not-for-profit research organization in North

Carolina, to review VNS’ data collection procedures, estimation methodology, and

48

1 RTI’s full report and the Executive Summary were provided to the Subcommittee. These documents are included as part of this statement by reference.

other operations. These VNS operations provide data for the news media to project

the outcome of U.S. elections. The purpose of this review was to provide an independent, scientific assessment of the causes for the mistaken calls in the Florida

presidential vote and to make recommendations for improving the Election Day forecasting methodology in order to avoid mistaken calls in future elections.

RTI assembled a team of six senior statisticians and survey methodologists to conduct this review: Drs. Paul Biemer, Ralph Folsom, Richard Kulka, Judith Lessler,

and Babu Shah, and Mr. Mike Weeks. None of these six individuals had any significant prior knowledge of, or connection with, VNS operations nor any experience

with the Election Day voting process. This apparently was a key requirement of the

VNS Board for selecting RTI for the review and ensured an objective and impartial

assessment of VNS operations.

The scope of the review was confined to the following six areas: (1) evaluation of

precinct sampling methods; (2) evaluation of pre-election research methods, particularly with regard to any evidence of political bias; (3) evaluation of projection models

and calculations; (4) evaluation of data collection procedures, particularly with regard to any evidence of political bias; (5) evaluation of quality control procedures

throughout the system; and (6) audit of information in the report written by VNS

for the VNS Members dated December 8, 2000. The Executive Summary 1 highlights

the major findings in each of these areas and summarizes RTI’s recommendations

based upon the review. The details of our evaluation and recommendations are contained in the full RTI report1.

Our review was based upon essentially three sources of information: (a) documentation provided by VNS (the list of materials RTI received appears in Appendix

A of the full report), (b) a two-day meeting with VNS staff during which we discussed (1) through (6) above, and (c) ad hoc interactions between RTI and VNS during the review for clarification purposes. A major focus of the review was the Election Day system as it performed for Florida. Although the VNS Board requested

that we assess the system in at least five other states, data from state and local

officials for the selected states were not available in time for our review. Therefore,

an analysis of the data for states other than Florida was not possible.

Due to necessary constraints on resources, time, and the scope for this review, we

did not independently verify all of the information in the primary documents and

data sources that were available to us. However, there were several key areas where

VNS information was independently verified, and these are noted in our report.

Unless otherwise noted, the term ‘‘bias’’ used in our report refers to statistical

bias, not political, media or other bias. Statistical bias is the expected difference between the value of an estimator and the population value it is intended to estimate

when these differences are averaged over many, hypothetical repetitions of the entire election forecasting process. It is caused by random errors occurring in the data

collection, data processing, or estimation processes that are either uncontrolled by,

or beyond the control of, the designer. Political bias refers to deliberate errors in

estimates, which force the election outcomes in the direction of one political party

or another in order to bring about a desired election result. In our review, we found

no evidence of a political bias; however, we did find evidence of statistical biases

in the estimates, as we discuss below.

1. Precinct Sampling Methods

Our investigation revealed that VNS’ precinct sampling and associated estimation

methods were well designed for estimating the Election Day vote and generally follow standard statistical practices. The oversampling of precincts that are designated

as high-percent-black units, which was done to improve the precision of the estimates, is a widely accepted technique for sampling heterogeneous populations. To

account for the higher percentage of blacks in the sample using this method, the

estimate for blacks is given a lower weight in the calculation of the overall estimates, so that the resulting estimator of the total vote is technically unbiased. We

verified that this was done appropriately in the exit poll estimates.

While VNS’ sampling methods for estimating the Election Day vote are well-conceived, the methods for estimating the total vote including absentee and early voters

are subject to potentially serious statistical bias. We also found that the exit poll

samples typified by the 45 precincts drawn for Florida are too small for producing

accurate state-level results. A small sample size not only reduces the precision of

the exit poll results, it also increases the statistical bias in the ratio estimates of

the candidate vote shares.

49

In reviewing the VNS estimation formulas, we had questions about two approximations VNS had employed in their standard error calculations. Therefore, we recalculated the standard errors for the Gore percent advantage in Florida based on

official vote totals with and without these approximations and found no important

differences in the standard errors of the candidate vote differentials. Thus, we believe the standard errors for the exit poll and VPA estimates appropriately account

for sampling variation.

2. Pre-election Research Methods

Overall, VNS’ pre-election methods for collecting data from sampled precincts are

generally sound, but the ways in which they are used both to perform edit and consistency checks on the election night system and in formulating decisions could be

substantially improved. The VNS decision processes would benefit from both better

information on the absentee/early vote in each county/state and better use of the

available data on past elections from the research. Further, in spite of an excellent

track record, the VNS Research Department could benefit from a general review of

new methods and technologies by which it could implement some of its protocols

more quickly and accurately.

3. Projection Models and Calculations

The exit poll and VPA (Voter Profile Analysis) precinct estimates are based on a

well-designed sample survey that provides an excellent source of timely information

on the voting preferences of voters, their characteristics, and their opinions. The

Core estimation process provides timely information on race outcomes and also attempts to incorporate measures of uncertainty in the estimates, despite the fact that

the samples are not random.

However, the measures of uncertainty presented on the decision screens eliminate

some potentially important sources of error in the VNS system and, thus, the true

uncertainty in the estimates may be understated. In close elections, the risk that

an election analyst will call an election erroneously could be substantially higher

than the information on the decision screens indicates, even if the analyst correctly

interprets the information. In addition, the information provided on the decision

screens is prone to misinterpretation, and the rules used for election decision-making are inappropriate, given the continual flow of data into the process. A muchsimplified screen that uses a sequential-sampling-type decision rule would better

control the error in forecasting a winner future elections.

4. Data Collection Procedures

VNS’ field staffing operations worked as planned for the exit polls and the NETS

county reporting system. The problems were more frequent in the operations for the

VPA sample and the NETS precinct reporting system. Nationally, reports were received from 98% of the exit poll precincts, 84% of the VPA precincts, 62% of the

precincts in the NETS precinct reporting pool, and 100% of the counties (or county

equivalents) in the NETS county reporting system. However, these rates are similar

to those in past presidential elections.

We found training materials and the training process for the exit poll interviewers

to be thorough and appropriate. Based on a sample of interviewer debriefing questionnaires, it appears that the exit poll data collection protocol was implemented

reasonably well in non-problematic voting places—e.g., those with only one exit, a

good interviewer location close to the exit, and a cooperative polling place official.

The follow-up telephone conversations we had with 12 exit poll interviewers reinforced the data in the questionnaires.

While many of VNS’ data collection procedures worked as intended, we have some

concerns about their adequacy to produce data of sufficient precision to call very

close elections like the 2000 presidential election in Florida. We believe the most

serious data collection problem VNS had in the 2000 election was noncoverage of

the absentee vote and early voters in critical states such as Florida.

Another problem area is exit poll nonresponse (refusals and misses). According to

VNS, the average state-level response rate in 2000 was 51%; this compares with

55% in 1996 and 60% in 1992. A nonresponse rate of this magnitude is a potential

source of statistical bias in the model projections if the voters who respond have voting characteristics that are significantly different from those of nonrespondents. In

our two-day meeting with VNS staff, we were told that the exit polls more often

overrepresented Democrats than they do Republicans. This effect could be the result

of a statistical bias due to nonresponse.

Finally, another area of concern is the absence of any direct quality control check

on the interviewers’ data collection activities.

50

5. Quality Control Procedures

One of the strengths of the exit poll survey quality control system is the repetitive

nature of the reporting process. Another is the use of overlaid precinct estimates of

exit poll survey bias. This indicator, if used appropriately, can provide valuable information regarding the accuracy of the exit poll results and can sound a warning

if there are major problems with the exit poll data. The NETS (New Election Tabulation System) makes good use of the data from similar past races to check the

counts provided by the county reporters. In addition, the multiple reporting procedures of the NETS provide a self-correcting feature in the process that can be effective for correcting previous erroneous reports.

Despite the numerous inspections, verifications, and edit checks that have become

part of the VNS Election Day system design, there are still opportunities for important errors to enter the system and dramatically change the election results. For

example, the number of overlaid precincts in Florida was too small at the time of

the Gore call to be a reliable indicator of the exit poll bias. In addition, the quality

control methods for ensuring that accurate data are received from precinct and

county reporters is inadequate, particularly for close races, and can be improved.

6. Audit of Information in VNS Report

A strength of the VNS report (dated December 8, 2000) is its broad scope, which

provides a good indication of the difficulty in mounting the extremely complex process that culminates in the collection, analysis, and reporting of data from diverse

and dynamic sources in a single 24-hour period. The authors took a broad view of

what could have gone wrong and attempted to determine if there was an error in

the procedures that contributed to the errors in the calls. This report should be useful to VNS Members for gaining an understanding of why errors were made in the

Florida calls and to formulate ideas as to how the system needs to be changed.

However, the report needs more documentation. Although considerable work was

done to assemble information, there is frequently not a clear description of how this

information was compiled. The procedures and data that were used to prepare the

individual reports included in the December 8 report are largely not discussed.

Many statements are made that reference results that were assembled by VNS staff

without showing the supporting data. The report also inadequately describes the

contribution that the modeling and the use of partial samples made to the error in

the early call for Gore. This lack of explanation of the modeling and lack of documentation on information available for analysis also limit the reader’s ability to formulate ideas as to how the system needs to be changed.

7. Summary

In summary, we believe that the errors that led to the Gore call in Florida and

then the late night shift to Bush were the product of a number of system errors

that tended to work in concert at various points in the evening toward favoring one

candidate and then the other. The major sources of error were: (a) estimation of the

early/absentee vote, (b) exit poll ratio estimator bias, (c) end of night outstanding

vote needed estimation, and (d) county-level reports. Stricter quality controls and

quality standards and improved estimation methodology could prevent these errors

from occurring in future elections.

In addition, we believe the measures of uncertainty provided on the decision

screens underestimate the true total error in the estimates. Thus, the risk that an

election analyst will call an election erroneously could be substantially higher than

indicated by the information on the decision screens. The complexity and amount

of information provided on the decision screens increase the risks of misinterpretation of the election results. In addition, we believe the rules used for election decision-making are inappropriate, given the continual flow of data into the process. A

much simplified screen format that uses a sequential sampling type decision rule

would better control the error in predicting the outcomes of future elections.

Our key recommendations for VNS are as follows:

1. Improve the methodology for estimating the effect of absentee votes on estimates

of the candidate vote differential.

2. Improve the methodology for estimating the outstanding votes needed by candidates to win an election.

3. Improve the measures of uncertainty for the key election estimators to more fully

reflect the total variation and statistical bias in the measurement process.

4. Improve the quality control systems to quickly and reliably signal the occurrence

of error.

5. Integrate the ideas of sequential analysis in the election decision process and develop better guidelines and decision rules for deciding to either make a call or

wait for additional data.

51

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Biemer.

The Chair recognizes himself for a round of questions. Mr.

Biemer, you are making some very strong recommendations for

changes in which VNS models its exit polling and its data and presents that data to the networks. Is that correct?

Mr. BIEMER. Yes.

Chairman TAUZIN. And the report of the three of you to CNN basically says don’t use exit polling any more. Which is the better option? Can we trust that exit polling can be remodeled at VNS to

a point of high confidence at the networks and with the American

public, or should the networks heed your advice and simply stop relying upon exit polling to predict results?

Ms. KONNER. I think our report doesn’t say don’t use exit polls.

It says don’t use exit polls for projecting elections, that exit polls

are very valuable instruments for analyzing how voters vote and

that they should continue to be done.

Chairman TAUZIN. So what you are saying is that exit polling is

a very good tool for analysis that follows an election, but you’re basically saying don’t use exit polls to make these predictions and

these calls. Mr. Biemer is, on the other hand, recommending improvements in the VNS system which the networks rely upon now.

And I’m asking, basically, which is the better approach. Mr.

Wattenberg.

Mr. WATTENBERG. My sense of the matter is that as Joan Konner

says is that exit polling is extremely valuable as an analytical tool,

and becoming almost worthless as a predictive tool.

Chairman TAUZIN. Almost worthless.

Mr. WATTENBERG. Yes, sir.

Chairman TAUZIN. Why is it getting worse?

Mr. WATTENBERG. I will tell you why. Because of the move to absentee balloting, early balloting, nonresponse rates which, as Mr.

Biemer says, are now down below 50 percent, and we saw in Florida that the exit poll was off by 7.6 percent. That is an enormous

error. That is not, as the VNS people would like to say, well, it is

a one in 200 chance. That is a 1 in 10,000, one in a million sort

of a shot. And the only way it can be fixed, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, is to use standard polling, telephone polling in advance

of the election to find out how the absentee voters and early voters

voted; but the standard preelection polling is in a bigger ditch than

election polling. They are getting only 20 percent of response of

every hundred people called. They are getting only 20 percent of

the people responding.

Chairman TAUZIN. So your conclusion is that exit polling itself is

becoming less and less reliable as a predictor rather than increasingly more reliable.

Chairman TAUZIN. Mr. Biemer, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. WATTENBERG. And so is polling generally.

Chairman TAUZIN. And so is polling generally.

Mr. Biemer.

Mr. BIEMER. I think that exit polls can be useful for calling races,

and I think that the main lesson here is that we have to look at

all of the data. We have to look at the measures of uncertainty associated with what the exit polls are telling us. And the first rule

is to get those measures of uncertainty right so that if we have a

52

projection that is being made by an exit poll, but measures of uncertainty are large, we hold back and we don’t make the call. It is

like a margin of error. If you use the margins of error and let them

direct you, whether it is close or not—— Chairman TAUZIN. Let’s talk about that. VNS does establish

what we call ‘‘crit numbers,’’ which are the minimum statistical

numbers that should be reached in these surveys in order to justify

a call for one candidate or another in that State; is that right?

Mr. BIEMER. Right.

Chairman TAUZIN. Now, one of the questions we were focused on

as we convened this hearing is the one your committee actually addressed and that is, was the rush to be first with the call more important than the responsibility to be right? You’ve concluded that

there was too much of a rush to be first and the responsibility to

be right perhaps may have suffered as a result. I want you to explain that to me. If VNS is setting these crit numbers and VNS is

giving these crit numbers to every one of the networks commonly,

how is there a contest? These decision desks at the networks actually make decisions in front of or behind those crit numbers? Do

they make decisions to call a State for example before the crit numbers are reached?

Mr. BIEMER. Can I address that?

Chairman TAUZIN. Please do.

Mr. BIEMER. I think in the case of the Gore call the crit numbers,

the margins of error, on the screen were misleading because it did

not show the total error.

Chairman TAUZIN. But I have given all of that—— Mr. BIEMER. But if—— Chairman TAUZIN. Did they, in fact, call States before the crit

numbers were reached in some cases?

Mr. BIEMER. I don’t think so. I don’t think they—— Chairman TAUZIN. We think we have evidence that that happened. We want to get to that.

Mr. BIEMER. I don’t know about other States. I don’t think it was

the case in Florida.

Chairman TAUZIN. We have also know in some States, even

though the crit numbers were released, the calls were delayed significantly; and we are wondering how that happened, and I wondered if the committee had looked into that and what was your

conclusions about that.

Mr. RISSER. I don’t think we felt we had the expertise to look

into it in great detail. But we did ask about it, and our report includes an appendix by the CNN-CBS decision team giving their answer as to why each of those States was called.

Chairman TAUZIN. I think we will get into that later with the

witnesses, and I believe my time has expired. I simply want to put

one thing on the record though: What were your instructions from

CNN when you were commissioned to do this report?

Mr. RISSER. Our instructions were to find out what went wrong

on election night, why it went wrong.

Chairman TAUZIN. And you had full freedom to do that.

Mr. RISSER. Absolutely.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you very much. The Chair yields to

Mr. Dingell.

53

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the panel.

Mr. Biemer, about the Research Triangle Institute, can you tell me

whether your work there indicates to you that there was any intentional or unintentional bias that favors either party, Republicans or

Democrats?

Mr. BIEMER. We found no evidence of any intentional bias.

Mr. DINGELL. Does the rest of the panel agree with that?

Ms. KONNER. Yes.

Mr. DINGELL. The reporter doesn’t have a nod button. You have

to say yes, please.

Ms. KONNER. That was our finding.

Mr. RISSER. Yes.

Mr. WATTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Now, it can go both ways, does it not, the bias sort

of built into the system to be triggered by events outside? Isn’t that

the way it works? It’s a bias that goes either way.

Mr. BIEMER. Yes, the biases can go either way. There are systematic errors.

Mr. DINGELL. What is the correction for that?

Mr. BIEMER. A correction?

Mr. DINGELL. Yeah, what do we do to correct that? More money?

Better polling? More assistance to the agency that did the work for

the network?

Mr. BIEMER. If you’re talking about the bias in the exit poll.

Mr. DINGELL. How do you break the bias out of the system?

Mr. BIEMER. There’s a bias in the exit poll that I think was

caused by the so-called ratio estimator, which is a technical bias

associated with the type of estimator. One way in which one can

alleviate that bias or eliminate that bias, this estimator uses a past

vote. In the case of Florida, it used the, I think, the 1998 gubernatorial past vote as a way of correlating this past vote with the

current vote to try to make a projection. If another vote, the 1994

Presidential election—I’m sorry, 1996 Presidential election had

been used, you would have gotten a very different estimator and

the call for Gore would not have been made.

So part of this is not to rely on one past vote or maybe on several

past votes to try to get some idea of how much these estimates are

bouncing around. And that would slow down the calls and prevent,

I think, what happened with the Gore call in Florida. So that is

the technical bias.

Then there’s another bias associated with the nonresponse bias

of the exit poll. And as I mentioned, the nonresponse rate is around

49 percent. If the respondents—if the people who respond to the

poll and the people who do not respond to the poll have essentially

the same split for one candidate or another, there’s no bias associated with that. The problem comes in when the people who do not

respond tend to favor one candidate more than the other more so

than the people who do respond. And there’s very little you can do

I think to try to alleviate that bias unless you can somehow increase the response rates in such a way that it doesn’t exasperate

the differential candidate split in the nonresponse.

So I think more research looking at ways to increase the response rate in the exit poll might be one answer to that, eliminating that bias.

54

Mr. DINGELL. Would you suggest that if we forget all of this business of statistical correction which appears to be difficult and just

set a higher risk level that that would probably reduce or terminate the risk?

Mr. BIEMER. I think if one can widen the error, thinking in terms

of confidence level, if one widens the bounds of the confidence level,

that is to say, increase the measures of uncertainty, that it makes

the estimate look less precise than they currently do on the decision screens, what the effect that will have is to slow down the

process of calling an election. And I think that may be one thing

to investigate, whether or not we can obtain measures of uncertainty that better reflect the total error, not just sampling error but

the nonsampling error as well. And that way there won’t be any

significant difference between the candidate vote-share and it will

be too close to call for more elections which, I think, will, I think,

slow down the process of calling the elections. So that is one possibility.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you say the right precincts or the wrong

precincts were used for sampling?

Mr. BIEMER. The precincts were drawn randomly and it looks

like that randomization was done properly.

Mr. DINGELL. It was done properly.

Mr. BIEMER. Yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Should they have used a larger sample?

Mr. BIEMER. I think a larger sample would certainly have solved

a number of problems.

Mr. DINGELL. It would have eliminated the bias.

Mr. BIEMER. It would certainly have affected the bias, the technical bias in the ratio estimator, because that estimator was based

on 45, 44 precincts. If we double that, I think we would have gotten

a more accurate estimator; and if the bias would have been reduced, the technical bias would have gone down with the increase

in sample size. It wouldn’t have reduced the nonresponse bias due

to the exit poll, however, which was not a big factor.

Mr. DINGELL. How much would it cost to fix this thing? And that

would mean that more money would have to be paid by the networks to get to VNS to get a better work product, would it not?

Mr. BIEMER. If you doubled the sample, the field work would increase by a factor of two; and I imagine the budget would increase

by the same factor, or close to it.

Mr. DINGELL. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. The Chair would recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Biemer, I want to

direct my attention to you. I’ve got this report here that you folks

prepared, and I specifically want to go to page 28 and just read—

so I think you have in front of you—‘‘since the bias tends to consistently favor the Democratic candidate, such an adjustment could be

quite effective for reducing this bias. In addition to the point estimate of the bias, an estimate of variance of the bias estimate

should also be given to user so they can evaluate how reliable the

available information on exit poll bias really is.’’ And then when you go into another section of your report on

page 38 in the second paragraph, it says: ‘‘We are not convinced

55

that nonresponse of this magnitude can be safely ignored. Further,

in our 2-day meeting with VNS staff, we were told that the exit

poll have consistently overrepresented, Democrats which could reflect a bias from nonresponse.’’ So I just want to clarify, in your written testimony you indicate

that VNS advised you that exit polls more often represent Democrats than they do Republicans and that this effect could be the result of statistical bias due to nonresponse. If there is this bias, how

can you properly account for this?

Mr. BIEMER. What we suggested in here was that if there were

a State, for example, that had a consistent bias over a number of

elections that favored, say, Democrats and we knew that that was,

you know, at least 1 percentage point or 2 percentage points, one

could require that the margin of victory for that Democratic candidate be greater than that, say, twice what we think that bias is

before we would call an election. In other words, we would hold

back calling the election if there was any chance that the Democratic bias associated with the exit poll could be causing the numbers to sort of tilt toward the Democratic candidate. So one way we

could do it would be to try to work that into the decision rules.

Now that would only be the case if we knew that the State over

a number of elections consistently, the exit poll consistently was favoring the Democratic candidate. I don’t know how often that

happens—— Mr. STEARNS. Let me take that statement. Consistently, are you

saying it is unintentional or intentional.

Mr. BIEMER. It is unintentional—— Mr. STEARNS. How do you distinguish between unintentional and

intentional? How do you do that quantitatively not qualitatively?

Can you do it?

Mr. BIEMER. I think what we have to do is there are a set of procedures that interviewers follow to try to get the exit poll data and

we look at those procedures and say okay are those procedures favoring one candidate or another or are they going to be nonpartisan-type procedures. We looked at those procedures and we

didn’t see any evidence that they would favor one candidate or the

other. It doesn’t mean that the respondent, the Democratic respondents, may behave differently in terms of how they might respond. But from what we could see, it wasn’t anything we could see

that the interviewers were doing; and the procedures, you know,

seemed to follow the statistical practices and what we would consider to be good statistical practices and conservative methods.

Mr. STEARNS. Isn’t it true these procedures have been used for

years?

Mr. BIEMER. Right.

Mr. STEARNS. So in your report you’re talking about an unintentional, to use your words, bias to the Democratic Party. You have

pointed out at least four times in your report—in fact on page 50

it says under ‘‘potential areas for improvement,’’ it says in fact it

is well documented that exit polls tend to be biased toward the

Democratic Party. The so-called Democratic bias referred to in earlier sections—the other two, three sections I mentioned, thus some

verification of the respondents selection process would seem warranted. So here we have you saying unintentional bias toward the

56

Democratic Party has consisted for years, the procedures have been

there, no one has continued to ferret this out and stop it. So based

upon what you said in page 50, how do you intend to correct this

in the future if they have not corrected it in the past for all these

years?

Mr. BIEMER. Well, what has been done that I know of in the past

has been to try to increase response rates by providing incentives

to a respondent.

Mr. STEARNS. What’s a response rate mean?

Mr. BIEMER. A response rate, essentially you take the number of

interviews, divide that by the number of interviews plus the noninterviews. The misses and the people that refused. So it is essentially the rate at which the people approached respond to the exit

survey. It is around 50 percent for the exit poll. One way to try to

reduce the nonresponse bias is if it were zero nonresponse rate we

would have zero nonresponse bias. So one idea would be to try to

make the nonresponse rates smaller. Their attempts to do that,

however, have actually made the problem worse because with some

experimentation they have done they have found that these methods to provide incentive tend to affect the Democrats more than Republicans, so they’ve been trying to—VNS has been trying to work

on this to eliminate this bias.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be important for you or someone on the committee to bring up that chart

again to show the overestimate for Gore in 34 States plus the District of Columbia. And that was, I think, a very telling chart on

what we’ve been talking about.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. I am intrigued by

your statement of incentivizing responses. I’m not sure what you

meant by that. If you want to explain that.

Mr. BIEMER. What we typically do in survey work when we have

a problem with a low response rate and we recognize that participating in a survey is a burden is that we offer an incentive.

Chairman TAUZIN. What do you mean? Tip them, pay them?

Mr. BIEMER. Yes, we might give them a gift. Usually, this is with

no strings attached. We give them a gift like a pen. We might even

give them money. We might give them a dollar bill, two dollars.

Chairman TAUZIN. Cigarettes? The Chair will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Mr. Biemer,

in your testimony your analysis—you point out that you have uncovered other major sources of errors at VNS, including the exit

poll ratio estimator, the end-of-the-night standing-vote needed and

county-level reports. In addition, the RTI study highlights that the

quality-controlling methods for ensuring that accurate records from

precinct and county reporters are, quote, ‘‘inadequate particularly

for close races.’’ Obviously, the news directors and news anchors

did not know of these deficiencies.

Mr. BIEMER. I don’t know if they did or not.

Mr. MARKEY. Did you find any evidence that they did?

Mr. BIEMER. I think in discussions with VNS we were told that

they do provide the decision desk analysts with information prior

to election night about things about the absentee votes.

57

Mr. MARKEY. Let me read the quote from your own study here

on page five. You say: ‘‘Measures of uncertainty presented on the

decision screens eliminate some potentially important sources of

error in the VNS system and thus the true uncertainty in the estimates may be understated.’’ I continue to quote: ‘‘In close elections

the risk that an election analyst will call an election erroneously

could be substantially higher than the information on the decision

screens indicates even if the analyst correctly interprets the information.’’ In other words, VNS is at fault here, not the network news divisions. They were sending up faulty information without giving the

actual degree of true uncertainty as pointed out here that existed

in the information as it was being presented. Isn’t that accurate?

Mr. BIEMER. I don’t know who’s at fault, but I will say the statement we made there about the decision screens being misleading

in terms of uncertainties, that is correct. I believe they are to some

extent, and this is true when you look at what happened in the exit

poll in Florida. The measures of uncertainty did not include things

like the potential bias due to the ratio estimator, the absentee bias.

Those things weren’t reflected.

Mr. MARKEY. That is what I’m saying. So even if the information

was accurately interpreted, it could have still led to erroneous conclusions; is that correct?

Mr. BIEMER. Yes.

Mr. MARKEY. Do you think the news directors would risk their

careers based on something that could have led to erroneous conclusions, or do you think that VNS was the source of the problem

and it wasn’t properly communicated on the decision screens that

there was in fact a much higher level of risk that was entailed in

making projections based upon these numbers?

Mr. BIEMER. One of things we did not get into is what the addition desk analyst—what their approach was for calling these elections. All we did was look into what procedures VNS used to

produce these estimates, to collect the data, and put it on the decision screens. What happens after that we don’t know.

Mr. MARKEY. Exactly. The point I am making here is the news

anchors don’t have Ph.D.s in statistics. VNS failed them—VNS did

not give them the information in a form that was usable that

would protect the reputations of the news divisions. Don’t you

agree with that?

Mr. BIEMER. I don’t know if I agree or not because I don’t know

what information they got other than what’s on the decision

screens. I understand that there was other information——

Mr. MARKEY. You say right here in your report—you say in your

report, sir, you say measures of uncertainty presented on the decision screens sent to the networks eliminates some potentially important sources of error in the VNS system and thus the true uncertainty. So you’re saying that they sent erroneous information.

Mr. BIEMER. If they’re only using the information on the decision

screens, they are being misled.

Mr. MARKEY. That has to be said here.

Mr. BIEMER. If they are using the information beyond the decision screens along with the information on the decision screens,

they might be correcting some of their misinterpretation. I don’t

58

know about that because I don’t know the process that the decision

analysts use.

Mr. MARKEY. Did VNS mislead the news directors and the news

anchors? Yes or no.

Mr. BIEMER. The information on the decision screen is misleading. Now if you—— Mr. MARKEY. Would a news director be misled?

Mr. BIEMER. Yes, they would.

Mr. MARKEY. If they depended on the information that VNS sent

them?

Mr. BIEMER. Yes, they would?

Mr. MARKEY. Would anyone who had that information that you

say should have available to them, in your opinion, that made the

same decisions?

Mr. BIEMER. I don’t know what other information they had available.

Mr. MARKEY. In other words, if VNS had accurately communicated all of these deficiencies on the decision screen to the network, the news directors and news anchors that night.

Mr. BIEMER. If all this information that has come out later was

on the screens, no they wouldn’t.

Mr. MARKEY. They would not have made it.

Mr. BIEMER. Right.

Mr. MARKEY. Do you understand what we are trying to do here,

sir?

Mr. BIEMER. Yes.

Mr. MARKEY. We are trying to put the Queen of Spades in front

of someone. I believe the Queen of Spades should sit right in front

of VNS. I think there was obviously a terrible set of mistakes that

were made at VNS that were then sent on to all of these other people who depended upon them. I know this because we pay for

polsters as well as politicians. If a polster makes a mistake even

though he’s a professional, I’m going to make all of these expenditures based upon that erroneous polling. So once VNS makes the

mistake, everyone who’s dependent upon it is going to be prone to

looking pretty silly because they believe the numbers are accurate.

So what you’re saying right now is that you agree that these network news people had every reason to be mistaken once the erroneous information was given to them. And I think that is very

helpful to us as we move forward. May I also say, Mr. Chairman—

and I beg your indulgence on this—I do believe this should be a

legislative hearing and not an oversight hearing. I really don’t

think that we should be conducting this as though, you know, this

kind of a criminalization of news-gathering here. I don’t think

there’s any crime that’s been committed. I don’t think there’s any

news—I think this should be a legislative hearing and this should

avoid kind of confusing this with the tobacco hearings or the Firestone tire hearings.

There are clearly problems here; but as far as I’m concerned, it’s

pretty clear that VNS was at fault and that everyone else detrimentally relied upon this erroneous information. And obviously in

retrospect they did not want to call the country wrong twice in one

evening. There was great risk they all ran depending upon this information.

59

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair

acknowledges the gentleman is entitled to his opinion and I accept

your opinion. Let me just remind the gentleman, however, we are

in a fact-finding mode, and that is what this committee goes into.

And that’s where we are today. Let me quickly get something before I move on, that is, that we have evidence that there was a new

unified VNS system that would combine voter tabulation and projection and analysis functions under development since 1993, but

that due to budget limitations the project has not moved beyond

the creation of a partially unified data base.

Mr. BIEMER. I don’t know.

Chairman TAUZIN. You don’t know. We will find out a little later.

Who owns VNS?

Mr. BIEMER. Who owns VNS?

Chairman TAUZIN. Yes.

Mr. BIEMER. I thought the board of members.

Chairman TAUZIN. Mostly the networks. Right?

Mr. BIEMER. Right, the networks.

Chairman TAUZIN. Mr. Bilirakis is recognized.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess much of the

discussion today has sort of revolved itself around the word of bias,

and statistical biases may be a nicer adjective for it. But I submit

that as long as we are alive there’s going to be bias. And that bias

is there with the networks, just like I have a bias, just like you all

have a bias. It is going to be there. And I’m not sure that anything

this committee can do is going to climb into the heart and the head

and the mind of an individual or corporation or whatever to try to

keep a bias from entering into it.

And so I personally think that we have got to be concerned with

a process which offers the opportunity for the bias. And I guess it

goes maybe more to what Mr. Wattenberg and some others, like

Ms. Konner said that they don’t use exit polls at all. Did you say

that at all during the election period?

Ms. KONNER. To project.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. To project. But you think we should use exit polls

during the election period for other purposes?

Ms. KONNER. After the election.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. After the election, not during the election?

Ms. KONNER. After the election. They are a very useful tool for

analyzing the vote.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I can understand that, but after the election. Mr.

Risser do you agree with that?

Mr. RISSER. Yes, I do.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Wattenberg.

Mr. WATTENBERG. I certainly agree that it is a very valuable tool

for students of politics. I would just like to make one note about

Mr. Markey’s search for the Queen of Spades and this distinction

between the news directors and VNS. If I were a network news director, I would have a little sign on my desk that said ‘‘VNS or Us.’’

In other words, VNS is, am, are the networks. They own it lock,

stock, and barrel. They have been advised, as I understand it—I

mean, there’s a paper trail going back 20 years as to how we

should do this process: Is it a good process? Is it biased? When

60

should we call? When shouldn’t we call? I think the whole thing,

listening to this discourse, is somewhat bizarre.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Wattenberg.

Mr. WATTENBERG. I’m sorry.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You’re doing this on my time. And it’s okay.

Mr. MARKEY. Could you open the mike for me.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I don’t know that I have the time.

Mr. Wattenberg, you refer to the preamble and you read the preamble to us of the report. So I ask you, how tough should we as

a Congress be? We all believe very strongly in the first amendment;

and we all want to be careful that we don’t trample all over it and

that sort of thing. But how tough should we be considering this is

a real problem. After all, it can affect and has affected our elections.

Mr. Brown and others have referred to some of the things that

have happened in Florida, et cetera, et cetera, that’s, you know,

that’s one opinion. But we know what exit polls can do. We know

what calling these elections early, if you will, in an incorrect manner or even a correct manner can do insofar as voting around the

country is concerned. If these early Eastern elections had been

called even correctly, if you will, I think we all agree it would have

affected what took place in the West in California and what not.

Ms. KONNER. I don’t think we would all agree to that.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You wouldn’t agree with that. With what?

Ms. KONNER. That no matter what happened in the East it

would affect the West. I don’t think there’s any evidence for that.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is that—Mr. Wattenberg.

Mr. WATTENBERG. The evidence is that there is no evidence. That

no one knows what sort of effect—— Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right.

Mr. WATTENBERG. [continuing] what sort of effect early reporting

has. In my own view, I think perhaps Joan and I may or may not

disagree on this, but that sets up a mode of suspicion and rancor

some of which is reflected.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mrs. Konner, what is wrong, then, with exit polling which may be correct, which may be incorrect, things that have

took place, what is wrong with it all if it isn’t going to make—disenfranchise, if you will, people in certain election areas in certain

States, the Western part of Florida, for instance, the Northwestern

part of Florida, California, et cetera, what is wrong with it then if

it’s not going to—— Ms. KONNER. It’s up to a voter to vote. It’s up to a voter to vote.

The polls are open, the voter may vote. It’s just that simple. We

are not disenfranchising, we being——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You don’t feel that they might be influenced?

Ms. KONNER. That is their responsibility whether or not to be influenced. The voter. Exactly as the respondent in a polling operation is responsible for responding or not responding. As it was

said, that the procedure was judged to be in concert with the best

polling procedures. What they cannot control is the response from

the person that’s being asked the question.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. What are we doing here today then? What are we

concerned about. What are you concerned about when you say

there should be not be an exit poll.

61

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired, but you

may answer if you would like.

Ms. KONNER. We are concerned about using polls for projections.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. If they don’t cause any harm what’s the trouble?

What’s the problem?

Ms. KONNER. Faulty information causes harm. It distorts the

view of reality. Our job is to give a picture of reality that is based

on fact. That is the role of the journalist.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair

recognizes the gentleman from Ohio Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was intrigued by Mr.

Waxman’s opening statement when he read an article from, I

think, the L.A. Times citing a reporter who was surprised and perhaps more than surprised about the election night about the placement of certain people, if you will, in the election night operation

of Fox, that the first cousin of the Governor of Florida, Governor

of Texas, the first cousin worked in a crucial position on the election night desk.

And that that article, I believe, went on to say from Mr. Waxman’s statement that that was the—that was the first network

that called the election and at 2 or 3 in the morning for Governor

Bush, that network. Then in the very highly charged competitive

atmosphere as we saw in the clips, as we’ve heard from several up

here, as we’ve heard from others and that the highly charged competitive atmosphere that the other networks soon followed suit and

called the election for Governor Bush. The article went on to say

the burden that sort of put, or the imprimatur that that put on the

election on the American public’s view of who won the election,

that and immediately some very clever people came up with the

‘‘Sore Loserman’’ signs, it looked immediately a take-off on the

Gore-Lieberman signs as you recall. It immediately made it really

look like—it gave some impetus to Republicans consistently saying

Gore is stealing the election, Gore is stealing the election, Gore is

stealing the election.

I’ll start with you, Mr. Wattenberg. Do you recommend that the

networks adopt a policy prohibiting the hiring of a Presidential

candidate’s close relatives, second cousins first cousins, brothers,

sisters? Should that be a statement that this panel makes?

Mr. WATTENBERG. No, sir. I think that’s preposterous.

Mr. BROWN. And why?

Mr. WATTENBERG. Because you hire people based on their merit

and their qualifications. And I don’t think anybody ought to be

kept out of a job because he’s related to someone or not. And the

idea that the other five distinguished and professionally—professional journalistic operations base their call on what Fox did, which

is one of the minor players in this game, strikes me as equally preposterous. And I would be much surprised if any of these network

executives acknowledged any sort of—they all were calling from the

same screen. Somebody had to call first. It was within 2 minutes

they all started calling.

Mr. BROWN. You believe it was all coincidence that Fox, where

Governor Bush’s first cousin worked and helped make a decision

having talked several times that night with, I believe, both GovVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
62

ernors both of—two of his first cousins, that they went first and the

other networks when afterwards. That’s total coincidence.

Mr. WATTENBERG. Fox called Gore while the election was still in

the first call, Fox called Gore along with all the other networks,

and that was while the election was being held. This was post election. I see no particular evidence.

Mr. BROWN. You say it was a coincidence.

Mr. WATTENBERG. I should hope. So I would imagine so. I can’t

imagine it being anything else.

Mr. BROWN. Do any of the other three of you think just for appearances sake, I know that journalists generally believe that the

appearance of a conflict of interest is a problem. And when, you

know, the fact is the networks, no—reporters didn’t report very extensively that George Bush’s first cousin was in a decisionmaking

position, if you will, for what is acknowledged by almost everybody

up here as the most conservative, politically, of the major networks.

Most of the public doesn’t know that. When you tell people that

George Bush’s first cousin works for Fox and they called the election first, I’m not a conspiracist either but I also think that the appearance of that could be troubling to some people. And journalists

are always very aware of appearances.

Mr. WATTENBERG. Sir, there are a lot of Americans who think

that the other five networks are too liberal. So there’s bias and

there’s bias.

Mr. BROWN. Only because conservative columnists, yourself excluded, of course, have been telling the American public for years

that the networks and the media in this country are so liberal.

Mr. WATTENBERG. Based on some pretty good data.

Mr. BROWN. We could debate that. Anybody else on the panel

think it would be a good idea that there’s a policy you don’t hire

in decisionmaking positions, on election night, close relatives of

Presidential candidates? Ms. Konner.

Ms. KONNER. Policy decision?

Mr. RISSER. I don’t think there should be any policy set by Congress or an official body.

Mr. BROWN. No. I don’t either.

Mr. RISSER. I think networks, when they look at who they’re

going to hire to operate the news side of the business, they look at

their past, what their qualifications are; but I certainly wouldn’t

recommend any kind of ban. There are lots of people working in

the news media who have been in government or politics on one

side or the other over the years and still can do fine jobs in journalism.

Mr. BROWN. Ms. Konner.

Ms. KONNER. I don’t think there should be a policy. I don’t know

the qualifications of that particular individual. If there is a perceived conflict of interest, I would think that there would be some

layers of insulation between that individual and the person who

was going to make the announcement on the air.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Biemer, do you have an opinion?

Mr. BIEMER. Well, all I want to really point out is that the, you

know, when the Bush call was made there was only like a .6 percentage point difference between the candidates. And VNS did not

make the Bush call, the networks did. But looking at the data on

63

the screen, I would not have made that call. So I don’t know what

happened in terms of calling it for Bush. The data didn’t support

the call as far as I’m concerned.

Mr. BROWN. So it may not be out of the question that the calls

to Austin and to Tallahassee to wherever, I don’t know where the

Florida Governor was that night, that those calls could have possibly had an impact or the American public could think they had

an impact on Fox making a decision that VNS really didn’t suggest

that they make?

Mr. BIEMER. I guess anything is possible. I don’t understand why

the call was made is all I would to say.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair

needs to report however to the committee that we do have some

factual information gathered by the investigatory staff on this

point. That there were, in fact, four members of that decision desk,

three of whom were Democrats, that Fox had a unanimous decision

requirement all four had to agree before a call was made. And that

other members of the desk were, in fact, talking with Democratic

operatives throughout the election night just as calls were being

made to the Bush operatives that evening.

That’s the facts we’ve uncovered. Judge as you may. The other

thing we have, we do have a VNS screen from that time period at

2:10 in the morning which we will discuss when VNS is here.

Mr. BROWN. Can I ask for Ms. Konner’s response.

Ms. KONNER. That somebody should check those facts? As we

should check all facts. There are three Democratic operatives plus

one Republican operative.

Chairman TAUZIN. No, Ms. Konner, let me repeat what our investigative team discovered, that there were four members of the

desk at that network. And that the policy of the network, according

to the network, that was all four had to agree upon a call. Three

of the members of that four-man team were Democrats and that

calls were made to Democratic operatives that evening just as they

were made to Republican operatives. That’s all I know.

Mr. BROWN. That was done by an internal not external investigatory scheme if you will. I would add if we’re going to play tit for

tat.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman——

Mr. BROWN. Who is the CEO of this Fox news is also a former

political consultant. If we want to play that game. The point is——

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman doesn’t have the time. I will

yield to the gentleman if he wants to continue this. But the Chair

is simply laying down facts discovered by our committee investigative team—by the committee’s investigative team. If you dispute

those facts, you can do so in your inquiries.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr.

Greenwood.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I’m calling that the hen in the Fox house conspiracy theory. It was a laugh line. And I also note that on the

question of whether these TV programs influence voters, they did

an exit poll and 100 percent of the voters coming out of the polling

booth said they were not dissuaded from voting by television programs. That was also a laugh line.

64

Anyway, absentee ballots. Mr. Biemer, you indicated that in your

report that failure to accurately account for bias due to under coverage of absentee ballots was a major source of error in the VPA

estimate. Can you quantify that?

Mr. BIEMER. Yeah.

Mr. GREENWOOD. How much of the problem was due to absentee

ballot undercoverage?

Mr. BIEMER. I think we have a table on page 10 that shows that

the absentee ballots accounted for about 20 percent of the bias.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Okay. And do you have information as to for

how long VNS and/or their network owners were aware, have been

aware of this issue of absentee ballot under coverage?

Mr. BIEMER. I think they were aware of that. And I think they

tried to project an absentee correction in one of the models that

they used on their decision screens. What happened though is the

projection was off.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Isn’t it the case, and I think this is a serious

issue, because of the use of absentee ballots is on the increase. I

believe in some States you can vote by absentee ballot for weeks

in advance of the election. I think they’re going to become increasingly a higher percentage of the total vote tally.

And in Florida, I understand, that Bush received 23.7 percent

more absentee ballots than Vice President Gore; is that correct?

Mr. BIEMER. I think so. 23.7.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Isn’t it the case that in order to—in order to

dispense with this source of error, to do it effectively, you’d have

to do telephone surveys in advance of the election. Isn’t that the

most effective way to correct this? In other words do some kind of

telephone survey to get a statistically accurate count of how many

people had voted by absentee ballot and how they had voted?

Mr. BIEMER. That’s the best way I can think of.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Is there reason to believe that the reason that

the networks—despite the fact that the networks had known and

VNS had known this is a source of—significant major source of

error, and that they’ve known it for awhile and that they’ve known

the way to correct it is with the telephone surveys, is it apparent

that they didn’t do that because of the cost involved?

Mr. BIEMER. That would be my guess, it would be the cost because it is pretty expensive.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Do any of the other panelists have information

with regard to this issue and for how long it has been the fact that

the networks have known that the absentee ballot undercoverage

is a major issue and to what extent they chose to resolve it; ignore

it?

Ms. KONNER. I don’t know.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Let me return to Mr. Biemer then. Would your

recommendation to the networks be, if they continue to use this

kind of a system, that they pretty much have to if they want to be

accurate, that they’re going to have to spend the money to do the

telephone surveys in advance of the election in order to accurately

count the absentee ballots they would have to do that in every

State.

Mr. BIEMER. I’m not sure it would be necessary in every State

because I think it becomes a real issue in States that are going to

65

have a very close election. I think there might be other ways which

are less expensive to try to project what the absentee vote would

be well enough so that in States where there’s a wider margin it’s

not going to come into play.

In Florida because essentially it was a tie between the two candidates, a small error in their projection of the absentee vote made

a difference, a pretty important difference in the way that they

called the election. In other States where there’s a wider margin

of victory there, the methods that they’re using maybe with some

improvements, looking at sort of trends over a number of elections

to see which way, you know, if absentee votes are on the increase,

how much are they increasing and be able to sort of project what

they are for the next election, do that a little bit better than they’re

currently doing. I think there might be some ways there which you

can use that methodology. But it would not work in all States.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my

time.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair

recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Stupak, for questions.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Konner, the original

allegation made by this committee was that the networks had delayed or deliberately otherwise certain State calls for George W.

Bush that made the rest of the country believe that Mr. Gore was

sweeping the country and discouraging people on the West Coast

from voting. Did you find any evidence of that?

Ms. KONNER. No.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Wattenberg, you provided us a copy of your column in the Washington Times in which you discuss much about

Gore’s, if I can quote, winning ways on the East Coast, that Slade

Gordon lost the Senatorial election in Washington State. Washington, of course, is a State that has 50 percent absentee vote. Well

let me ask you, was that a conclusion reached in review of your report for CNN or is this your own personal view?

Mr. WATTENBERG. My column is my own personal views.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay. Was there anything in this report that you

did for CNN that would lead you to conclude that?

Mr. WATTENBERG. That to—— Mr. STUPAK. That Slade Gordon lost because of the so-called winning ways of Al Gore on the East Coast.

Mr. WATTENBERG. The point that I was making, Congressman,

was that he lost by just a couple of thousand vote in a mediumsize State. And if, in terms, of all the scholarly evidence that we

have about the impact of voting behavior in States that vote after

other States are called is that we don’t know. There are scholars

who say it one way and scholars who say it the other way. And my

point is that is just opening up a whole new ground of rancor

and——

Mr. STUPAK. The CNN study you did, anything in there that

would lead you to make that review or that decision. Or it was just

these other scholarly reports that you’ve read in the past.

Mr. WATTENBERG. We looked at the scholarly report, and I think

we jointly came to the conclusion that they’re pretty well all over

the lot. And my own conclusion was that they all seemed to end

up with the idea that well, even if it is a factor of the ones that

66

were positive in this sense, that even if it is a factor, it was a very

small factor. And the whole lesson of Florida is that every vote

counts. And consequently, the early release of these votes is just

asking to take the Titanic to another iceberg.

Mr. STUPAK. But early announcement like this on the East Coast

would have less impact in Washington than other States on the

West Coast because Washington has such a high absentee voter

after votes were in before the announcement could be made. So the

impact upon the State of Washington of any of the West Coat

States would be minimal if anything.

Mr. PICKERING. Is 2,000 votes minimal?

Mr. WATTENBERG. Yes. That’s my point. It might be minimal.

But if the margin of victory was only a hundred votes or ten votes

or one vote, you’re opening up a system that leads you directly to

these kinds of hearings with everybody else saying you know,

you’re not telling the truth and the election was stolen.

Mr. STUPAK. Did anyone else on the panel other than Mr.

Wattenberg reach that conclusion that Slade Gordon lost because

of——

Mr. WATTENBERG. I don’t say that, sir. I indicated what the margin of difference was, using it as an example to show how close certain elections can be.

Mr. STUPAK. In Michigan, Mike Rogers beat Diane Byrum by 88

votes, and that was called before. Do you think that would have influenced the Mike Rogers win over Diane Byrum?

Mr. WATTENBERG. No.

Mr. STUPAK. But yet Washington it’s different.

Mr. WATTENBERG. It’s two time zones later. It’s 2 hours later.

Certainly.

Mr. STUPAK. Well, part of Michigan is on central time zone too.

Mr. WATTENBERG. Then it’s 1 hour later.

Mr. STUPAK. Could be 2 hours later. Did anyone else reach that

same conclusion? Ms. Konner.

Ms. KONNER. All of the—what we read, this is secondhand evidence, what we read that none of the so-called scholarly studies

were beyond criticism. That all of them had serious flaws in the

methods they use to study it. And there was no conclusion that

could be drawn from the studies that early reporting had any impact on voting in the other time zones.

Mr. RISSER. If I can just add, one of the problems or questions

is even if it does have an impact, it’s not always clear which way

the impact would be. If I hear my candidate lost, okay, maybe I

don’t go to the polls then; but maybe so does the person who wanted to vote for the winner because they think well he’s already won.

So you don’t really know which way the effect would go if there is

any.

Mr. STUPAK. Ms. Konner, in your testimony, you indicated also

that the networks pooled their resources in VNS to cut costs and

expanded their polling research. It’s my understanding that they

actually reduced it from 2000 precincts that CBS previously did

plus the 2000 that NBC did which may have some overlapping to

some extent to about 1400 precincts. So there is actually less polling instead of more. Is that fair to say?

67

Ms. KONNER. My understanding is that the service was expanded

when this collaboration was set in motion.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay. So it was expanded. But was there some

overlapping then which would actually produce less precincts being

looked at.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Ms. KONNER. That may be so in some areas, but I think overall

there was an expansion of service.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes

Mr. Deal, I believe, is next in order.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Konner, in your testimony you cite the report. And one of the statements you made is

to follow up on what was just requested or commented on, that the

concept of VNS also effectively eliminates competition in the market for the establishment of a second system and it might also stifle journalistic enterprise. The idea being that more than one

source is always good in order to check a result. It would seem to

me that in light of this result which is embarrassing obviously to

the networks, that instead of continuing to pool efforts that maybe

the race should be on to see who has the best sources rather than

each relying on interpreting the same source. Is that, in effect, part

of what the report is recommending?

Ms. KONNER. That’s one possible solution. Even so, let us say

CNN had its own source, it would be a single source. It might be

better to have two sources which they share in, two independent

parallel sources of polling. That’s just—I mean that’s just hypothetical. It’s up to the networks to determine now they’re going to

solve this problem. But it is a problem to have a single source.

Mr. DEAL. Well—— Ms. KONNER. If you had five independent polling operations, but

each network was only relying on its own, it might not be an improvement. I don’t know the answer to that question.

Mr. DEAL. The other question of course, and I think everyone has

commented on it to some degree, you say we also found no convincing evidence that calls made before polls are closed within a

State or in another State have an impact on voter turn out. I suppose the corollary of that is true as well, there is no evidence that

it did not. Is that correct?

Ms. KONNER. There is no evidence.

Mr. DEAL. That’s sort of like trying to call the election almost,

isn’t it. There is no evidence either way.

Mr. WATTENBERG. That’s exactly the point.

Mr. DEAL. That’s all, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes

Mr. Doyle. I’m sorry, Mr. Deutsch will be first.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Biemer, you know,

we’ve talked a lot about so far today the statistical bias and you

know, the error system. And I want to present at least something

which we know happened, which is that blacks in America, when

they think they’re voting for someone, the chance of their voting

being counted as an actual vote is lower than non-blacks in America. Would you accept that as a factual statement?

Mr. BIEMER. I’m not sure I’m clear on it.

68

Mr. DEUTSCH. That when someone goes to the poll, that your exit

poll, as a black African American and they are responding to you

that they voted for a particular candidate that statistically the

chance of their vote not counting ultimately in the actual count of

the ballot as opposed to the poll is less than a non-African American.

Mr. BIEMER. I don’t know.

Mr. DEUTSCH. It’s something you should look at because it’s factually accurate. There have been a number of statistical analyses

that have been done, I think, for to you take a look. And I’m going

to question Research Triangle Institute in your whole premise because if you’re looking at the bias, which you have said exists, for

you not to have looked at that question, I question the professional

competence of the report. I mean think about what you just said.

Okay, there’s factual basis that black Americans’ votes actually

don’t count. What I am proposing to you is you’re just missing the

whole point. And, to some extent, I think the committee and the

hearing is missing the whole point.

The chairman has said the error is in the system. The error is

in the systems that the exit polling doesn’t accurately reflect the

results, that there’s a bias. Why is there a bias? Why? I would

present to you one of the reasons there is a bias is that we have

a factual reality that African Americans and others, you know, people in different segments in our society, but specifically African

Americans’ votes don’t count as much because of a system in terms

of how votes are counted.

Mr. BIEMER. Right. Are you saying then that the exit poll would

count their vote but yet it wouldn’t be registered in the official?

Mr. DEUTSCH. Absolutely.

Mr. BIEMER. So there is a bias there. I think we did mention that

in our report. There’s I think a potential—well it wasn’t necessarily

with regard to African Americans. But I think 3 percent of the vote

in Florida was not counted. And we considered that as a potential

source of bias on the other side, that is what we hold to be the gold

standard is the actual official vote.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Right. But again the point that I’m making is that

the chairman has mentioned, my Republican colleagues have mentioned 34 percent—34 States are biased toward Gore. Why was

there that bias? Why? I am presenting to you one of the reasons

there is that bias is because African Americans votes were not

counted as much.

Let me talk to you a little bit about why. If you’re really doing

research. And this committee is really talking about the election.

There have been other studies that have pointed out that to get

through the—Florida had the distinction of having the most candidates for President of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

It’s not a happy distinction in hindsight, but it’s—very few, I’m

sure, of my colleagues are aware of it. We have the largest number

of candidates for President on the ballot of any State in the country. And there’s also been an analysis that it took a 4th grade education to get through the average ballot, not just the famous butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County but in Duval County and Jacksonville, 26,000 people in Duval County, predominantly African

Americans. And you can go by precinct because Florida is a Voting

69

Rights Act State where race is actually on your voter registration

card. It’s not theoretically, it’s not just knowing the neighborhoods.

We actually know who voted. We know that black, which people

voted. That and in Duval County, there was a two-page ballot.

So there is research done that says that ballots required a

fourth-grade education. What happens when you need a—if you

only have a first-grade education and have you a ballot that needs

a fourth-grade education? That would create a statistical bias. Because those people can’t count.

Mr. BIEMER. That’s not a bias of VNS system; that’s a bias in the

official——

Mr. DEUTSCH. What I am presenting to you and what I am presenting to my colleagues is what we really should be talking about.

You acknowledge statistically that there is a bias. What I am saying to you is that that bias is really at the core of what’s wrong

with America. And that if we want to be talking about this election, that’s what we ought to be talking about.

We ought to be talking about the fact that literally hundreds of

thousands of people’s votes didn’t count, why didn’t they count, how

we can change that so that never happens again. So that we don’t

have hundreds in fact millions of people in this society who are

functionally illiterate. If you don’t have a literacy—there’s more

than one way to have a literacy test which effectively is what we’ve

had in this country.

Again I would present to you that you know, we’re looking—my

colleagues are just totally missing it. They’re totally missing it. The

people on the other side of this room are totally missing both VNS’s

faults and the faults of what happened in the election. I see my

time is up, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes

the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Largent.

Mr. LARGENT. I’m not even sure I know what I’m missing, but

apparently I’m missing something. My friend from Florida maybe

he can explain to me what we’re missing.

But I would like to ask, we have a panel of experts up here. I’m

just wondering is there any factual data that reflects what he just

said, that more African American votes are discounted or not

counted than any other percentage of our population? Is there any

factual data to that? Anybody on the panel.

Ms. KONNER. I think you have to ask him.

Mr. WATTENBERG. I have seen some data just in the press that

indicates that an African American casting a ballot, that ballot is

somewhat less likely to end up being counted than for a non-African American. But—and I don’t know that for a fact. I’ve seen allegations of that. But there is a statistical point there to be made

which I find very interesting, is if you say that African Americans

voted 92 percent Democratic and they were underrepresented in

Florida, say, where they represent 15 percent of the vote, so then

you have to ask yourself even if there was a lesser discounting of

the remaining 85 percent, the non-African American votes who

were disproportionately for Bush, doesn’t that—don’t those errors

cancel each other out or perhaps even tilt the other way? I don’t

know the answer to that.

70

Mr. DEUTSCH. If the gentleman would yield for 1 second. I would

hope that the record can be open for the hearing. I’ll provide again

these are newspaper accounts and just some you know some quick

and dirty stuff I’ve done myself.

If you cross reference it, the percentage of undervotes or overvotes in precinct, there is a direct correlation between percentage

of black, you know, race in that precinct, I mean throughout the

State of Florida. You can look at it yourself. I encourage you to look

at it yourself. I encourage the staff and committee to look at it

yourself, and maybe we’ll have another hearing related to. But

again just hold the record and, Congressman Largent, I look forward to giving it to you tomorrow.

Chairman TAUZIN. We always allow the record open, and the

gentleman may indeed submit the material which will be considered for entry.

Mr. LARGENT. I’m always open to receiving down and dirty information.

Mr. Biemer, do you do any accounting for the minority vote, particularly the black vote? Do you do—in exit polling do you do any

kind of adjustments or recalculations or different calculations to account for a minority disparity?

Mr. BIEMER. I know that in—within Florida, there was a separate stratum for blacks that was oversampled to provide more accurate information.

Mr. LARGENT. So explain what you just said. There is an oversampling of the black vote in the State of Florida. What does that

mean?

Mr. BIEMER. When I say oversampling, this is a statistical term

to mean that they’re sampled at a higher rate.

Mr. LARGENT. Why?

Mr. BIEMER. This is a very common way in all survey statistics,

it’s called the ‘‘stratified sample,’’ a common way of increasing the

precision of the overall estimate. Because from sample to sample

if you were to just sort of repeat samples in Florida, just sort of

keep drawing samples, you would find that a stratified sample

would be more consistent across the number of samples that you

drew than if it was unstratified. And when you have a population

that is going to be voting somewhat very differently than the rest

of the population, stratifying them improves the precision of the estimates.

Now what you do to compensate for that is you weight down

those—after you oversample and you compute an estimate for that

stratum, you weight it down in the overall estimate so that in the

overall estimates they’re getting the right weight. They’re being

represented in the same proportion as they are represented in the

population. They’re not getting more weight in the estimate.

They’re getting the same weight in the estimate as their numbers

dictate in the population. But it’s just a way of increasing precision.

Mr. LARGENT. So essentially what you’re saying in laymen’s

terms is because the black vote would be at 92 percent Democratic

that you would overweight that sample. It doesn’t have anything

to do with whether they’re votes counted more or less.

Mr. BIEMER. No. It has more to do that they’re going to vote differently.

71

Mr. LARGENT. Okay. I understand. Thank you. Dr. Konner, I

wanted to ask you a question. You stated a moment ago about that

what your job is to give a view of reality based upon the facts. Is

that correct?

Ms. KONNER. That’s correct.

Mr. LARGENT. Talking about—if exit polling in your opinion, and

I think I heard this correctly, you said that you did not know or

are not sure that exit polling used for projections affected the outcome of—in polling places where the polls are still open; is that correct?

Ms. KONNER. I said there was no evidence to show that any early

projections impacted upon the outcome of an election.

Mr. LARGENT. Why not? Why would there not—why wouldn’t

that—as a political scientist, why would that not be a really critical

issue that some political scientist, some smart person would want

to know?

This is an issue that’s been going on for 21 years since 1980.

Why doesn’t a political scientist want to know, do early predictions,

based on exit polling, which is not facts—I mean, if you’re talking

about using exit polling and you’re talking about dealing with the

facts and views of reality, then don’t talk about exit polling because

that’s not reality. That’s a guess. That’s a thumbnail.

Ms. KONNER. You have to address that to the political scientist

community. Seems like—— Mr. LARGENT. I thought you were a part of the political scientist.

You’re in journalism. I’m sorry. That’s maybe a more appropriate

question for another person. My time expired. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair

recognizes Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania.

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the panel,

now CNN retained you three distinguished individuals to tell them

what happened in the election and why it happened and how to

make sure it doesn’t happen again. And two of the recommendations you made was to stop using exit polls and votes from sample

precincts to predict the winner of the States; is that correct?

Now, it’s my understanding that CNN and for that matter all the

other networks are not taking either one of those recommendations. Is that correct?

Mr. RISSER. Well, only partly I would say. CNN’s response is that

it will no longer use exit polls for projections in close races. And

if they can’t tell at the time the polls close, clearly who a winner

is in a State based on exit polls, then they’ll drop the use of exit

polls and go to the use of the actual counted votes and sample precincts.

Mr. DOYLE. Have the other networks indicated, have they also

indicated that they’re not accepting either of those recommendations?

Mr. RISSER. I don’t know.

Mr. DOYLE. Why do you suppose that is? Do you envision they’re

worried that coverage would start at 11 at night and would have

winners projected at 4 in the morning or—— Ms. KONNER. Again I think this should be addressed to the network representatives themselves. But I think that it should not be

72

overlooked that, in fact, the percentage of projections that were correct is very high.

Mr. DOYLE. Let me—yes.

Mr. WATTENBERG. I don’t think Mr. Risser indicated that CNN

did not accept our recommendation. I mean, I think as I understand it, they from our recommendations and from other material

they’ve gathered, they came to a roughly similar conclusion that we

did, which was that exit polls should not be used for projection purposes.

We all agree, and everybody I know in the political community

thinks that exit polling is an extremely important part of the democratic process if you don’t squeeze it into the demand for results inside of 75 minutes so you can beat somebody else by 3 minutes.

Mr. DOYLE. Let me ask you about actual vote counts too. You’ve

recommended that actual vote counts be used to make these projections. What is the rule of thumb or have you set a standard, when

do you—when do you make that judgment when you think that

you’ve seen enough actual votes to actually call an election, have

you established some rule of thumb for that?

Ms. KONNER. We didn’t do it in the report officially, but I would

say a majority of votes. When you have the votes coming in and

you have the majority of votes that are able to be cast and that’s

the—you can call the election.

Mr. DOYLE. But—— Ms. KONNER. The other thing is that there is a second source

available in vote counting. The AP has its own, it has its own vote

counting operation. And that is the second source that’s available.

Mr. DOYLE. But, for instance, in my State of Pennsylvania, the

votes from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh come in rather quickly and

that tends to skew toward Democratic vote in our State and then

the middle of State and the part they call the ‘‘T’’ usually comes

in very, very late at night. We’ve seen elections where we’ve gone

to bed at midnight, 1 in the morning thinking the Democrat had

won the election. And you wake up the next morning and the ‘‘T’’

had come in and the Republican had won the election.

It would have been impossible under that scenario in not only

Pennsylvania but many, many States to actually call an election

without using some sort of a voter projections. And I’m just curious. If we’re going to wait until there is the actual majority of votes

counted, in most likelihoods we’re not going to be able to call Presidential elections on the evening that they occur but we’ll know

when we wake up in the morning in most cases. I mean——

Mr. RISSER. Excuse me, Congressman, before the days of exit

polls, what you would see if you watched television was an account

of what percentage of precincts were counted in your State, let’s

say, and what the margin was for each candidate. And the people

on air and their advisors would know enough about whether votes

came early from one part of the State or another to whether they

could call it. And eventually they would call it. And maybe they occasionally made mistakes. But it was all based on actual vote

counts and a determination that at a certain time there was

enough known to make a decision.

When you make it solely from exit polls, especially if you do it

at closing time, you’re not doing it based on any vote not even on

73

one vote really. You’re doing it on what people leaving the polls

told the exit poller they were going to do. So it’s a difference in

what you’re using.

Mr. WATTENBERG. Congressman, my view is, and I think the

view of my co-authors of this report is, that what you described

that the public wouldn’t know until the next morning who won the

Presidential race, that is not a big problem. I mean—— Mr. DOYLE. There’s not necessarily a bad thing, but that would

be the result of that. The networks might think that’s a problem.

Mr. WATTENBERG. In a non-close election, you’d know right away

any way. I mean Reagan in 1980 or 1984, that would be a nobrainer. The point that Mr. Risser has pointed it out that it’s a terrific news story if you say we don’t know, if you don’t know. In

some ways, a better story than saying we do know, certainly saying

we do know when you don’t know. This was a very, very, very close

election. That’s a dynamite story. We’re signing off now; we’re not

going to know until tomorrow morning.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. There is no

question that—— Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. [continuing] that whatever happened on election night, an awful lot of people tuned in. It was pretty interesting. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, is recognized.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to enter

into the record the report from the 1984 hearing, joint hearing in

Congress, regarding this same subject matter.

And in this report it says, that nonetheless while the committee

is not prepared to state with certainty how large the decline in

voter turnout was, the available studies and surveys indicate great

likelihood that there was a significant decline due to the early network projections.

And I notice that there were five studies conducted between 1981

and 1984 on this subject—one of them had a network affiliation

and the other four did not have a network affiliation. Yet all of

them indicated that the media did have an effect on voting behavior by early reporting. And then on the bottom part of this, there

are 5 or 6 studies that said there is no effect on voting behavior.

And every one of those except one, there was a network affiliation.

I just want to point that out.

Chairman TAUZIN. Without objection the report is submitted into

the record.

[The report appears at pg. 182.]

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, it’s my understanding that this panel is

the only independent review of an election-night coverage of a network. That your panel is the only one that’s completely independent; is that correct?

Ms. KONNER. I believe so.

Mr. WHITFIELD. And you’ve recommended: One, that exit polling

not be used for calling an election; two, sample precincts not be

used for calling an election; and three, that actual returns only be

used and then enough votes to be counted so that the outcome is

certain so that there is no question.

Now this touches on what the gentleman from Pennsylvania

says. When we have local elections, there are no projections. The

74

actual vote count is reported, and that’s it. The winner wins. Now,

if you make this recommendation to CNN which you have made

and maybe to other networks as well, how would the American

public suffer by not knowing the results of an election until all the

votes are counted?

Ms. KONNER. I don’t know how to answer that question. I don’t

think that they would suffer by not having their appetite for an immediate result known.

Mr. WATTENBERG. I don’t think——

Mr. WHITFIELD. So what is the rationale for this rush to judgment that we must call these elections as soon as possible without

having complete data.

Ms. KONNER. I think you have to go to the basis for the competition between/among the networks.

Mr. WHITFIELD. You said that the core mission of journalism is

to serve the public.

Ms. KONNER. That’s what we believe. That’s what journalists believe. I do believe those are the core values that the journalists at

CNN have.

However, there is an underlying issue always. Journalism is part

of a commercial business. There has always been a tension between

commercial values, business values, and journalistic values. They

come into conflict frequently in determining what you broadcast

and when. However, there is a balance that is struck that has

served the public very well in the past. There are indications today,

and this is not in the report and I’m going beyond the report, that

that balance has shifted——

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right.

Ms. KONNER. [continuing] and that corporate and commercial

and business values are holding much more sway over the determination of the actions and behavior of journalists.

Mr. WHITFIELD. You know, I think that’s a very good point. We

oftentimes don’t refocus on that, but every network is a company

that’s in the business to make money. And there is a conflict sometimes with journalistic standards. I think that’s what’s happening

here. I yield back my time.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. John, is recognized.

Mr. JOHN. I’ll be very brief. I just wanted to maybe follow up

what the gentleman from Pennsylvania was talking about. I think

it was Ms. Konner that was talking generally in answering these

questions about the actual votes or maybe it was Mr. Risser that

was talking about some of the networks who had folks that were

hired to look into the actual votes that were coming in, and where

they were coming in from. And, of course, making that call once

you get over that threshold would be the safest way to call an election.

In your report, you recommend or talk about sampling and some

of the biases which exist out there. Is there a methodology, to your

knowledge, of where you combine both of those type of sampling

where you’re looking at the actual but you’re meshing it together

with some of the exit polling to verify or not verify what’s going on?

Did that happen election night, to your knowledge, in investigating

75

this? And would that be a good or bad thing to look at a model that

might have both of those methodologies combined?

Ms. KONNER. I think that’s the way it is done now. It’s just that

they do not wait for—they don’t wait for the actual vote count to

make the call. But those different figures are being balanced. And

they are all being taken into consideration at the point at which

they make the calls or the projection.

Mr. JOHN. But I think it was obvious from some of the predictions that the actual—depending on where they are coming from

and which State. I mean, I offer the State of Louisiana as an example. If you call an election before the city of New Orleans comes in,

then you’re making a big mistake. So I would think that as you

look at these and some of the States and some of the States were

called by just looking at some of this exit polling and not—couldn’t

possibly be looking at actual votes because of the timeframe of the

calling and the closing times.

Mr. WATTENBERG. I think what you’re describing is a function

that is performed by the decision desks at the various networks

and there are some eminently qualified people there. And I don’t

believe anything that we have recommended would set up rigid

rules certainly in non-close elections where you could not use the

accrued wisdom of experts to say, well, New Orleans isn’t in yet or

the ‘‘T’’ in Philadelphia isn’t in yet. I mean that’s part of the game.

I think what we came away with is that there is an arms race

going on, a time race, an arms race going on within the networks

that they feel pulled. On the one hand, they want to be accurate.

On the other hand, they don’t want to be left behind; or they want

to be first. And my own—you’ll have to ask them, I don’t want to

engage in amateur psychiatrics, but they are sort of in a mode of

stop me before I kill again.

That’s why I suggested in these various proposals of uniform voting that they’re in a mode where they can’t stop because of the

competition. So if you have an outside force that says, you’re not

going to get those real ballots until later or we’re going to have uniform poll closing, and that takes the burden away from the appropriate defense of the first amendment, that they can go about doing

their job as admirable professional journalists, which they are indeed.

Mr. BIEMER. Can I comment?

Mr. JOHN. Sure.

Mr. BIEMER. I don’t know if you are aware that the exit poll is

just one component in the process. They have the exit poll, then

they use the precinct, sample precinct information, then they use

the county level information.

Mr. JOHN. So they overlay each other.

Mr. BIEMER. Throughout the night, they bounce around. For example, early on they may use the exit poll. If it’s too close to call

for the exit poll, then they will wait for more data to come in from

the precincts; or maybe they’ll even wait for the county data to

come in. So they postpone, they postpone these calls if it’s too close

to call until the actual vote counts are done at the end of the

evening.

So they’re doing it now it’s just that I think what you’re—what

we’re talking about here is possibly not using the exit poll compoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
76

nent. I don’t agree with that. I think the exit poll component can

be valuable in States where there’s a wide margin to call a race

early if that’s what you want to do. But they do rely on other

sources, not just that.

Mr. JOHN. That really answers my question because there are

different components that we have to look at. If indeed what happened on November 7 was—your initial was looking at exit polls

and then you moved down the ladder and if it’s still too close to

call, you wait for those actual numbers. If that’s, in fact, what they

did, then maybe I can understand. But I’m sure that just by the

time of some of the closing of the polls these actual numbers in

some of these places weren’t able to be verified or matched against

some of the exit polls.

Mr. BIEMER. They do call on partial information even when

they’re waiting for data from the county, they may call a State before all the county data are in.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair

thanks the gentleman. The Chair yields to the gentleman from

Mississippi, Mr. Pickering.

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding

this hearing. I’m not going to ask any questions, just make a quick

statement because I know we need to get to the next panel. And

everyone has been very patient as we try to get to the facts of this

case.

To the gentleman beside me, the gentleman from Florida, who

raised some points a while ago, let me, in the spirit I hope that will

get us to a positive outcome of these hearings. The reality of the

truth is that the counties where you had the most undervotes,

overvotes, and the questions related to the African American community were in Democratic counties with Democratic election commissioners, represented by Democratic Congressmen, in districts

designed by Democrats. Now that’s the truth.

The reality is we need to all come together as Republicans and

Democrats and do something to modernize and reform the election

process. But it doesn’t do any good to try to say one side understands and one side doesn’t understand and that there was somehow a conspiracy on our side on those areas that we had no control

over.

The point of this hearing is to get to the truth, to get the facts

out, and to, hopefully, have constructive reforms for the future both

in the way the networks and the press cover elections and the way

we conduct elections. That’s a separate issue. But since it was

raised, I just wanted to make that point, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes

the gentlelady from California, Ms. Harman, for a round of questions.

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to say

how happy I am to be a voice from the bleachers on this committee

and to agree with the comments of the last speaker.

I hale from what at least one member of this committee calls the

left coast of California where we are vulnerable to fires, floods,

earthquakes, and early election calls. And I would just like to tell

a little story which is that in the 1980’s I had the good fortune to

practice law with a man named Jim Corman. James C. Corman

77

was a senior Member of the House until he lost his election in

1980. And many say now, certainly or even then, that the reason

he lost his election in 1980 was that then-President Jimmy Carter

conceded on the East Coast at 8 p.m. after East Coast election results were known. That was 5 p.m. in California and no Democrats

showed up at the polls after that. And Jim Corman lost an election

that most had thought would be a sure win. It was, of course, my

good fortune since I got to practice law with him.

But since my election to the House beginning in 1992, I have

never been elected by a margin of more than 5 percent. In fact, I

have only gotten to 50 percent once. And it was not this past election; so I am extremely sensitive to the impact of early election

calls on the Left Coast of California.

The solutions, it seems to me, should include this notion of a uniform poll closing; and, in that regard, I want to ask my friend, Ben

Wattenberg, why he thinks his idea of conditioning the receipt of

Federal funds on the agreement not to disclose election counts

would be easier to implement than would a uniform poll closing

time.

Mr. WATTENBERG. I am not against a uniform poll closing time.

It seems to me that in a disparate country of 50 States that jealously guard their rights, they are going to want to set their own

rules; and if you can work out a uniform poll closing thing which,

as I understand it, involves probably disadvantaging the West

Coast in terms of the number of hours when people are wide awake

that they will be able to vote, so there are some built-in problems.

I am not against it. It just seems to me that this other idea, if

even a few States—I mean if you say Ohio and Pennsylvania said,

yes, we will take your money for voting machines or we are going

to hold our vote, none of the political gurus are going to be able

to make a call in a close race nationally. They are not going to be

able to come close. Even if one of those States is out of the—if the

race is close in Ohio or Pennsylvania, the actual votes are not

called, I don’t see how they can make a call before the Left Coast

closes. So it seems to me to be a much simpler matter.

I would just like to make one other point, which is, in the course

of our interviews, we had a long discussion with Tom Johnson, who

is the President of CNN who, in an act of rare corporate courage,

I must say, commissioned this panel to tell it with the bark off, and

he used to be the publisher, as you know, of The Los Angeles

Times, which has a lot of information at its fingertips. And his

view anecdotally, not scientifically, was just as you say, is that a

lot of people in California believe they do not vote because the election has already been decided. So that is a pretty high cotton

source, in my judgment.

Ms. HARMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, time is short. I would just

like to conclude by saying that there are human casualties from

things like this. There may be no precise statistical proof of that,

but as one potential casualty, I have an enormous interest in this

and hope we get it right. I do think that uniform poll closing is a

piece of the answer. It may be that this other idea could work, but

I worry about counting on appropriations for anything and feel that

that may be more uncertain.

78

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I am very happy to be part of

this committee.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you, Jane. And we are very happy to

have you, by the way. Thanks for joining us.

The Chair is now pleased to recognize Mr. Buyer for a round of

questions.

Mr. BUYER. I have listened to some of my colleagues and their

comments. I just want to share with you, I spent 8 days in Florida

during the recount. So when you are there on the ground and you

have spent those days in three different counties, you learn a lot.

You learn what the rhetoric is, and then you find out what the reality is.

I sat and I looked at a lot of those nameless and faceless ballots

of which allegations are being made here today. You can’t tell the

race or the gender of that individual voter, but I do know what

happened. A lot of those thousands of ballots that I saw is that for

whatever reason that voter walked in there, you cannot believe

how many people voted for multiple candidates for President, and

you can’t believe how many voters actually walked in and voted in

this election, not just in Florida, but in all States, and didn’t choose

to vote in the Presidential column. They went to vote for a sheriff’s

race or the State election. They didn’t vote in the Presidential column. So we end up coming up with different theories as to why.

In my State of Indiana, we had about the same number of percentage of undervote as the State of Florida. So I get really uneasy

here when I hear these allegations of people saying, well, something happened with regard to the suppression of the black vote or

that type of thing.

I just want to share the reality of actually seeing it on the

ground in Florida. Of course, you know, there has been no discussion here about the Gore-Lieberman ticket having an overt act to

disenfranchise absentee military voters. That was the most disgusting thing I have seen in my entire tenure in politics, but Steve,

let’s don’t talk about that here, that is kind of a side issue, I suppose.

Chairman TAUZIN. Please.

Mr. BUYER. Let me make several observations. Ms. Konner, you

were so strong and emphatic in your remarks, that there was no

evidence, with regard to any influence that a reporter might report

something that would have an impact upon a listener. From my

opinion, I think that is absurd. I do however agree with your analysis that there is stress upon the journalist of today. Their actions

and behavior are a result of the commercialism which exists today

in the news industry.

Sitting there in Indiana, you know, news is almost more about

entertainment than it is news, and so I agree with that comment.

But when I look at this chart over there about published studies

indicating a media affect on voting behavior, it is clear that evidence exists of media news reporting affecting voters. There might

be evidence that perhaps you don’t agree with, but I would say that

your testimony that there is ‘‘no evidence’’ may not necessarily be

accurate. It does appear that some information exists supporting

your position that there is no evidence of media affecting voters.

However, the evidence you speak of is all supported by published

79

studies that have a network affiliation. Now, that is called bias.

That is called bias. That bothers me.

Another thing that sort of bothers me at the moment is for us

to, well, there is no statistical evidence of a bias or we have found

no evidence of a bias. I think we ought to be straightforward with

each other. There are biases, and one of the biases that I think is

pretty obvious is that some or all networks beat VNS to making

calls for either Bush or Gore in 21 States.

So when Mr. Markey tried to say that we are going to lay all the

fault is VNS, I say wait a second. The networks, didn’t even wait

for VNS on many occasions to make calls. Michigan and Pennsylvania are two examples. Michigan and Pennsylvania both were

called for Gore. Michigan was called 83 minutes before VNS, and

Pennsylvania was called 37 minutes before VNS. But the call for

Ohio turns out differently it was delayed. The networks called Ohio

for Bush within 4 minutes of VNS call, which happened to be almost 2 hours after the polls closed in Ohio.

Look at Virginia. Virginia is another example of a delayed call

for Bush. Fox, NBC, MSNBC, calls Virginia for Bush at poll closing; at poll closing Bush is ahead by 7.6 percent. The crit is very

safe, yet they delayed making the call for 30 minutes. There was

no aggressive action in this case. Networks were so aggressive to

make the call in Michigan and Pennsylvania for Gore, yet in other

States like Alabama, and others there was a delay. So it does appear that there was bias by the networks.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t—we need to get

to our other panel, but one of the things I wanted to point out to

my colleague from Indiana was that the undervote is not the concern.

When you look at the numbers in Florida, and I would dare say

that that is true around the country, that of the 2.7 million votes

cast in the eight largest counties, the overvotes for Vice President

Gore was 46,000 votes compared to President Bush, with 17,000.

And I would say that maybe we need to do a lot better job on voter

education and voter assistance in helping people to know that if

they have a spoiled ballot, they can go get another one, which is

I know Texas law and I would assume it would be in Florida. And

that is what I hope this committee is about to say, okay, what can

we do to make sure people are exercising their right to vote and

it is being counted correctly.

I know I heard earlier that the, for example, the closing or the

announcement of the calling of Florida before the Panhandle had

finished voting, and we looked it up and I guess it was 10 minutes

before the polls closed in the Panhandle of Florida, and I know my

own experience in Texas standing out in front of the poll for 10

minutes, I don’t see people watching TV or listening to the radio

while they are waiting the 10 minutes for it to close. So the argument that people in west Florida had decided they were not going

to vote because it was already called, I think we out to get down

to the real issues and not necessarily say somebody standing in

line in Pensacola walked away because it had already been called.

80

Again, hopefully that is what our committee will do, Mr. Chairman, and see what we can do to make sure about voter education,

but also to make sure we have some type of uniformity in calling

these elections. Thank you.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. Thanks for also expediting, because we do need to get to the next panel as quickly as

we can.

Mr. Pitts.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Biemer or any other panelist who may wish to respond, if

you look at VNS’s best model estimates immediately before and

after poll closing, 20 minutes before the poll closing, the best model

underestimated Bush’s margin of victory in 23 States and underestimated Gore’s margin of victory in only 5 States. The best model

overestimated Bush’s margin of victory in only 5 States, but overestimated Gore’s margin of victory in 12 States.

Now, the underestimate for Bush was 41⁄2 times Gore, and the

overestimate for Gore was 21⁄2 times more than Bush.

Ten minutes after poll closing, the best model underestimated

Bush’s margin of victory in 24 States, and underestimated Gore’s

margin of victory in only 4 States. That is six times underestimated. The best model overestimated Bush margin of victory in 4

States, but it overestimated Gore’s margin of victory in 14 States.

That is three and a half times.

Now, that may not be intentional, but why did that happen? Can

you explain that disparity?

Mr. BIEMER. I am not able to answer that. We only looked at

Florida, and we really didn’t do the analysis that you’re talking

about there, so I would have to actually see the data and delve into

it. On the surface of it, you know, it doesn’t sound like that type

of thing would happen purely by chance, but that is if there were

equal chances for both candidates to be under and over. It sounds

like that is not happening, but I am not sure what the cause would

be or what the data are saying in that instance.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair will keep the record open and

members will be permitted to submit that kind of information and

get responses. You, perhaps, would like to do that so that the gentleman can review your data.

Mr. PITTS. We will provide the data.

Mr. Wattenberg, do you have any comment?

Mr. WATTENBERG. My general view is that we asked the VNS

people about that, and the answers they gave us, I think, were convincing, which was, in effect, that it was—that that was the way

the cookie crumbled, that there was nothing devious about it or

preprogrammed in it.

What I found was bizarre was the magnitude of the miss—of the

miscall by VNS in so many States. I mean I just have a couple

here. Both Alabama and North Carolina, the swing difference was

16 percent off. Now, that is—that is why I come to the conclusion,

and I think our panel came to the conclusion, is that the last thing

in the world you want to do is start making—using this for projection purposes. When you can let the dust settle and use it for analytical purposes and hopefully have a second or third source so you

can see who is the outlier, that is of enormous value, but when

81

they are missing calls by 16 percent with no adequate way of correcting for that, that is where the scandal is, in my judgment.

Mr. PITTS. Any other panelists want to respond?

We will provide this information to you. If you have any insight

as to why this was always tilting toward Gore and in such magnitude, we would be interested in your opinion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Pitts. I believe Mr. Walden is

next.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question, back to Mr. Wattenberg, the point about being

off by 16 percent. What should they do to fix the problem that got

them there?

Mr. WATTENBERG. I am not a statistician, but I have been working with polls for many years; and this is an intractable problem

they have. It is built into the structure of low-response rates and

getting lower, it was the 60 percent, now it is at 55, now it is at

51, whatever it is, exacerbated by the growing tendency of States

to have early voting and more absentee voting, and combined, that

sets up the exit poll for wide margins of error, and the only way

to fix it, they say, is to go to standard telephone polling. But standard telephone polling, as we saw from the results during the course

of the election, have—they have enormous new problems themselves.

I mean the telemarketers are driving people away from responding, phone answering machines, there is a whole panoply of problems in regular polling where, as I understand it, of every 100 people they call, they are only getting 20 responses. So the logistical

problem of picking up the absentee ballots, plus the general accuracy of those polls, which were all over the lot during the election;

they came out all right, but at the same time, in the course of the

election, the polls varied enormously, tells me that this early calling is not only a bad idea in terms of democratic theory, but it is

becoming practically less and less plausible.

Mr. WALDEN. Should we then be using the exit polling to call

elections?

Mr. WATTENBERG. I don’t think—our panel thinks not, thinks

that they are a great tool for analysis, but not a tool that should

be used to project races.

Mr. WALDEN. Let me project into another area as well. I noticed

in your report which, by the way, was quite comprehensive and I

think quite to the point, shall I say, well written. But a question

I have, you did not take a stand on whether there is a trade issue

involved with VNS with all of the networks going to one source and

then agreeing to this thing, and I respect that. Do you think there

is an ethical issue, and do you think there is an ethical issue with

CNN and CBS, from a journalistic standpoint, not from standards

or ethical things that we look at here in the Congress sometimes,

but just from a journalistic ethic, is that a good way to operate?

Ms. KONNER. I think the question has to be asked legally, not

ethically. I don’t think there is an ethical problem here, and I don’t

think there is an ethical problem with CNN and CBS sharing a decision desk. The question about VNS as a collaborative effort

among competing agencies has been raised by thoughtful people in

82

the legal profession, and I think they are the ones that have to address it.

Mr. WALDEN. But as a professor of journalism, is this something

you would recommend to emerging journalism students from competing organizations to team up to achieve a common information

source and outcome?

Mr. RISSER. I personally don’t think there is anything wrong

with them teaming—of teaming up and having the source that they

use; the problem is if it is the one source that they use and if they

either don’t have competing sources or don’t check it against other

available sources. I think that is really where the problem came up

this time.

Mr. WALDEN. Let me ask one final question then. In Oregon, we

now do all of our voting by mail; and as you know, in the report,

VNS, they did a telepoll. That is the only way, and of course it

ended up being two votes per precinct difference in the Presidential

race. Anyway, it was very close and one of the last ones called.

In these States, as you see a great increase in absentee ballots

or vote by mail, what recommendation would you give to the networks regarding how they treat, how they acquire information?

Should they be out calling and reporting along the way? Because

you can determine who has already voted. You can go to the clerks

and determine who has already cast their ballot.

Do you think it is appropriate then for the networks or any

news-gathering organization to determine who those people are

who have voted, figure out how they voted and begin to report

that?

Ms. KONNER. I think any factually accurate information that is

available can be reported.

Mr. WATTENBERG. I think it is fine in Oregon; I don’t think it is

fine in Florida because of the time zone difference.

Mr. WALDEN. Oregon has——

Mr. WATTENBERG. Excuse me?

Mr. WALDEN. Could you elaborate on what you mean by the time

zone?

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired but go

ahead and answer.

Mr. WATTENBERG. Well, if it is an East Coast State and you are

reporting real votes during the Election Day or at poll closing time

when American voters are still voting 3 hours later, you are intruding in a sacred secular moment of democracy; and we ought to devise some methods that make it difficult, keeping in mind the first

amendment, from keeping the networks from intruding in that

way.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Terry is recognized.

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. Being last means we get to move to the

next panel, so I can feel the anticipation in the audience that I am

asking questions now.

Let me just ask two quick questions. First of all, when we talk

about this sacred moment in democracy, that is what we are talking about here, is how can we encourage or discuss the accuracy

of the information from network media which the press, the print

media doesn’t like to hear it, but that is where most of us get our

83

information any more. So I am curious, it seems to me that we are

splitting hairs when we talk about using inherently flawed exit

polling data for analysis versus calling. I know in your field they

are two distinct things; from a listener if I am hearing Brokaw,

you, or O’Reilly, whoever, or Bernard Shaw talking about in their

analysis, my goodness, Bush is in a tight race in Alabama or North

Carolina, this is devastating to their campaign, what is the difference?

Mr. WATTENBERG. Well, I think there are two big differences.

One is, in theory, at least, most of the analytical examination of

exit polling would come after the polls close, so it is no longer influencing the vote, and second it would deal in sort of broad categories

to say, well, people seem to be voting on the economy, or that is

the No. 1 issue or no, as some of the polls have showed, it is more

on moral issues than the economy, blacks seem to be voting one

way, Jews seem to be voting another, this is enormously important

material for voters and for journalists to have, but it doesn’t—it is

not intrusive on the process of voting.

Mr. TERRY. All right. I accept that point. But if they are still

using it as a cloaked way to call an election by saying, you know,

in essence that this is too close to call, it shouldn’t be this close,

that type of editorial language using that statistic, I still think that

is wrong. But I see your point. I think we need to define more succinctly the proper uses for the polling, exit polling data.

Mr. Biemer, let me ask you. You seem to be the point person on

statistics, and believe me, as a lawyer and as a politician, the last

thing I am good at is statistics in this realm, but is there a way,

of all of the suggestions you have made, of making it at least a little bit more viable? Is there a margin of error still to it that can

be assessed to it that at least the public will know, gees, even when

they talk about this, as good as the model has become, you are still

talking about something that inherently is going to be 4, 5, 6, 7

points off.

Mr. BIEMER. Well, it is important to realize that the exit poll

does a pretty good job in estimating the election day voting, despite

the fact that, you know, you have this tendency to overpressure the

Democrats in some areas, and there is a problem with the estimator, the ratio estimator in particular.

The second problem—the ratio estimator problem can be fixed.

We can either show more estimators on the screen and actually

show how the vote changes, depending upon which past vote you

are using to buildup your projection, or you can build in the error

in choosing a past vote into the measure of uncertainty there,

which would also allow people to know what the uncertainty is and

they would slow down the calls.

So the problems, the more difficult problem is of course the nonresponse rate is going to be—is one that we I think can address

with research, try to increase response rate and reduce the bias associated with that nonresponse, but the absentee vote is not part

of that exit poll right now. It is a separate adjustment that has to

be made to the exit poll, and we shouldn’t be throwing out the exit

poll because we are not getting some other component right, which

is the absentee vote.

84

There are ways of getting that component right, and some of

those ways are expensive. And in close races, you may have to use

a more expensive approach rather than trying to use past races to

project what the absentee vote is. But the exit poll itself is not bad

for the election day vote estimate.

Mr. TERRY. It is not bad, okay.

Mr. BIEMER. It can be improved. I am saying it is not hopeless.

We can—I think we can fix the problems with it.

Mr. TERRY. The point that I was trying to make is that no matter

how you improve it, it is still going to be flawed to some extent.

Mr. BIEMER. Well, it is an estimator. It is—— Mr. TERRY. I am going to cut you off because I am curious on

how the executives are going to adopt the policy of using this exit

poll.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Let me thank you all very much. One final thought. I remember

back in the 1980’s when Mr. Markey and I were considering all of

these same issues, and I think he and I came to the conclusion that

if Americans really didn’t like exit polls, perhaps they ought to

adopt a simple strategy and that is to lie about how they voted

when they came out of the polls. Do you think maybe they took our

advice?

Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

We are going to welcome the next panel of witnesses, so I would

like to see if we could bring them up right now as a group. I will

introduce them all to you as we prepare to receive their testimony.

While we are doing so, let me thank you very much for this long

evening. I don’t know if it is appropriate, but perhaps I should wish

you all a happy Valentine’s Day today. I realize this may not be

the best way to spend Valentine’s Day together.

Ladies and gentlemen, the second panel that we are assembling

is representative indeed of the networks and the news agencies of

our country. Let me first introduce Mr. Roger Ailes, the Chairman

and Chief Executive Officer of Fox News in New York, New York;

Mr. Andrew Heyward, President of CBS News, New York, New

York; Mr. Tom Johnson, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

of CNN of Atlanta, Georgia; Mr. Andrew Lack, President of NBC

News of New York, New York; Mr. David Westin, the President of

ABC News, New York; and Mr. Ted Savaglio, Director of Voter

News Service of New York, who is accompanied by Dr. Murray

Edelman, Editorial Director of VNS; and finally, Mr. Louis

Boccardi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Associated

Press of New York, New York.

This panel again has been asked to come and to give us their

thoughts on what went wrong that night, their thoughts on the internal and external reviews that have been commented upon by the

previous panel, and also to let Americans know what they and

their networks, their news offices may suggest as improvements to

the process by which we are informed about the most important

election in our country’s ongoing history.

In anticipation of that panel, let me announce to the committee

I have asked our investigators to be very careful in interviewing

and working with these witnesses, because indeed we do respect

the first amendment, because it is our tool as well as yours. It is

85

critical to this Nation that we always respect the line between government and the first amendment. The first amendment was, in

fact, designed to protect citizens from their government in their

free speech, and so we are deeply concerned that we tread very

carefully here.

So it is with deep appreciation, frankly, that I thank you for the

cooperation you have given our investigators in learning as much

as we could about what went wrong on election night in November

2000, and second, how much we deeply appreciate your willingness

to come and share with the American public your own thoughts

about how we can improve the situation of reporting on national

elections for the future.

I am going on a bit until we get all the pictures taken so we can

commence our hearing. Again gentlemen, thank you and welcome.

We will begin as we did the previous panel. We will start with

Mr. Ted Savaglio, director of Voter News Service of New York, New

York. Mr. Savaglio, again, according to our rules of our investigative hearings, it is our practice to take testimony under oath. Do

you have any objection to testifying under oath?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. No, sir.

Chairman TAUZIN. The chairman advises you that under the

Rules of the House and the rules of the committee, you are entitled

to be advised by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel

for your testimony today?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Yes, sir.

Chairman TAUZIN. Yes, you do. Well, then I have to go to another

page. In that case, would you identify your counsel for the record?

Mr. PENCHINA. Robert Penchina.

Chairman TAUZIN. Would you say it again, please.

Mr. PENCHINA. Robert Penchina of the law firm of Clifford

Chance Rogers & Wells.

Chairman TAUZIN. Counsel, you may move forward and sit at the

table with your client if you like. Counsel, will you be giving testimony today? Counsel, will you be giving personal testimony today?

Mr. PENCHINA. I will not.

Chairman TAUZIN. In that case, let me ask you, Mr. Savaglio, if

you will raise your right hand so I may swear you in.

[Witness sworn.]

TESTIMONY OF TED C. SAVAGLIO, DIRECTOR, VOTER NEWS

SERVICE

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. Last fall, we witnessed the closest election that anyone

could have imagined. Its closeness brought to light a series of flaws

in the election procedures and in reporting on the electoral process

to the American people. Those flaws included errors made by the

Voter News Service, of which I am the executive director.

As professionals who have tabulated, analyzed, and reported on

thousands of elections, my staff and I have spent this post-election

period working to understand precisely how those errors occurred

and how to prevent them in the future.

The electoral process is a cornerstone of our Nation. Reporting on

the culmination of that process is a serious responsibility. We owe

86

the public an explanation on the mistakes that have been made. I

can assure you we feel that responsibility keenly.

At the outset, there is one matter I would like to lay to rest. In

reporting to our members and our subscribers and indirectly to the

American public, we have one paramount concern: Reporting and

analyzing the results of the election accurately and quickly as possible. The notion that some kind of political bias enters into our

work is simply without foundation and I am pleased, Mr. Speaker,

that it appears to be common ground among us here today. I also

appreciate the assurances that you have given that this process

will not offend the free speech principles that we both must defend.

The Voter News Service was created in 1993 and is owned by

ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC. They are among the leading

news organizations in the country, and they are committed to the

highest standards of journalism.

The purpose of the Voter News Service is to collect, tabulate, and

disseminate vote returns, exit poll data, and projections of election

contests. That information is distributed to our six member organizations and to other subscribing news outlets who conduct their

own analysis and interpretation and report it to the American people as they see fit.

In addition to providing information to analyze election results,

VNS projects the outcome of contests to its members and subscribers. Our projections are based on complex statistical analysis

that take many factors into account, including, among other things,

the actual vote in sample precincts, tabulated vote at the county

level, and the exit poll. All of this data is reviewed and interpreted

by VNS analysts who add their own knowledge and experience before making a decision. Projections are made by people, not by computers. Since 1990, when the first joint polling and projection effort

began, we have been involved in nearly 900 elections around the

Nation.

The methods that we use to project winners in those races have

only been wrong once before. In other words, we have been right

99.8 percent of the time. Unfortunately, when you make a mistake

as glaring as calling Al Gore the winner in Florida, the number of

times you have been right seems less relevant. The plain fact is

that despite our best efforts, the Voter News Service let down its

members and subscribers and ultimately the American public. We

are determined never to let that happen again.

On election night, our statistical models, based on our exit poll

and actual vote from a number of sample precincts, showed that

Vice President Gore was ahead in Florida. Our decision team considered other variables and determined that the data clearly justified making a call. The reality, however, is that the race was a virtual tie.

Based on all that we have learned since then, the error in Florida was due to a convergence of a number of factors to which all

polling and projections are subject, which, in this case, all pointed

in the direction of a Gore victory. None of these factors alone would

have caused the error but, taken together, they did. Later, after the

Gore calls in Florida had been made and retracted, we discovered

problems in the tabulation of the actual Florida votes that led to

the race being called for President Bush. In one case, Volusia

87

County, VNS passed on incorrect numbers that were released by

election officials, and this went undiscovered until after the Bush

calls had been made. Moreover, we significantly undererestimated

the number of votes outstanding.

Based on this experience and following the recommendations in

the Research Triangle Institute study and in other reports, we are

actively pursuing a number of improvements, including the following: using larger samples for the exit polls; developing new procedures to account for the effects of the growing absentee and early

vote; rewriting the VNS projection and statistical models; working

to improve exit poll accuracy and response; completing work on the

integration of the Associated Press’s tabulated vote as a second

source of information; and developing more sophisticated quality

controls in the tabulated vote system and in the rest of our systems; and finally, upgrading and modernizing the VNS technical

capabilities and infrastructure.

We are taking these steps because, as journalists, we are deeply

committed to the integrity and accuracy of our reporting. We are

determined to do everything humanly possible to make sure that

these mistakes will never be made again. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ted C. Savaglio follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TED C. SAVAGLIO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VOTER NEWS

SERVICE

Thank you, Chairman Tauzin, Congressman Dingell, and Members of the Committee.

Last fall, we witnessed a Presidential election that was closer than anyone could

have imagined. Its closeness brought to light a series of flaws in election procedures

and in reporting on the electoral process to the American people. Those flaws included errors made by the Voter News Service, of which I am Executive Director.

As dedicated professionals who have tabulated, analyzed and reported on thousands of elections, my staff and I have spent this post-election period working to

understand precisely how those errors occurred and how to prevent them in the future.

The electoral process is a cornerstone of our nation. Reporting on the culmination

of that process is a serious responsibility, and we owe the public an explanation of

the mistakes we made last November. As individuals who have devoted much of our

lives to educating the American people about elections, I assure you that we feel

that sense of accountability very keenly.

At the outset, there is one matter that I would like to lay to rest. In reporting

to our member news organizations and, indirectly, to the American public on Election Night, we have one paramount concern: reporting and analyzing the results of

the election as accurately and

quickly as possible. The notion that some kind of political bias enters into our

work is, quite simply, without any foundation, and I am pleased, Mr. Chairman,

that that appears to be common ground among those of us here today. I also appreciate the assurances you have given that this process will not offend the free speech

principles that we both must clearly defend.

The Voter News Service (VNS) was created in 1993 and is owned by ABC News,

The Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News. They are among

the leading news organizations in the world and are committed to the highest standards of journalism.

The purpose of the Voter News Service is to collect, tabulate, and disseminate

vote returns, exit poll data, and projections of presidential primaries and national

and statewide election contests. That information is distributed to our six member

organizations and to other subscribing news outlets. These news organizations take

the data provided by VNS, conduct their own analysis and interpretation, and report it to the American people as they see fit.

Our organization makes possible the timely reporting and in-depth interpretation

and analysis of election results that the American people have come to expect and

rely upon. On Election Day 2000, our work involved more than 40,000 people who

88

staffed nearly 28,000 individual precincts and went to some 4,600 counties to obtain

the information that we needed.

In national elections, the final VNS National Vote totals, which are verified with

official state canvases, become a record of the election that is widely published. The

exit polls that we conduct are widely recognized as a critical source of information

for understanding an election. They are used by students, scholars, officials, and

journalists throughout the world. They tell the public, among other things: who

voted and why, what issues mattered most to the voters, which candidates’ policy

positions were most effective, and which candidates’ qualities attracted voters most.

In addition to providing information to analyze election results, on Election Night

VNS projects the outcome of contests to its members and subscribers. VNS’ projections are based on complex statistical analyses that take many factors into account

including, among other things: the actual vote in sample precincts, tabulated vote

at the county level, and the exit poll. All of this data is reviewed and interpreted

by VNS analysts who add their own knowledge and experience before making a decision that it is possible to project the outcome in a given race. Projections are made

by people—not by computers.

Since 1990, when the first joint polling and projection effort began, we have been

involved in nearly 900 election contests across the nation. The methods that we use

to project winners in those races have only been wrong once before. In other words,

we have been right 99.8 percent of the time.

Despite our strong record of accuracy, we constantly strive to eliminate all errors.

In between elections, our staff evaluates the performance of our methods and models and considers how they might be improved. The models are based on the accepted statistical theory of sampling, the principles of which have not changed. Nevertheless, over the years, we have made improvements in the models and procedures.

For example, we routinely research our sample precincts prior to an election, in

order to take into account changes in precinct boundaries and demographic composition. This year, our decision screens for California and Washington were revised in

light of a significant increase in absentee voting which has been evident in those

states. In this regard, since 1996, we have conducted telephone polls of absentee voters in states where a high percentage of absentee ballots are cast, and we continue

to work to improve the methods for polling absentee voters.

Unfortunately, when you make an error as glaring as calling Al Gore the winner

in Florida at 7:52 p.m. on November 7th, the number of times that you have been

right seems less relevant. The plain fact is that, despite our best efforts, the Voter

News Service let down its members, subscribers, and ultimately the American people, on Election Night 2000. We are determined never to let that happen again.

Toward this end, VNS has conducted an intensive internal investigation of what

went wrong on Election Night—an inquiry that is still continuing. In addition, our

members commissioned an independent review by the prestigious Research Triangle

Institute. Several of our members have also conducted investigations of their own.

On Election Night our statistical models, based on our exit polls and actual vote

from a number of sample precincts, showed Vice President Gore ahead—decisively

it seemed—in Florida. Our decision team considered other variables, including absentee vote beyond that which already was accounted for in the models, and determined that the data clearly justified making a call, which we did shortly before 8:00

pm. The reality, however, is that the race was a virtual tie.

Based on all that we have learned since then, the error in Florida was due to the

convergence of a number of the anomalies to which all polling and projections are

subject, which in this case all pointed in the direction of a Gore victory. None of

these factors alone would have caused the error, but, taken together, they did. These

factors include:

• the exit poll, showing Gore ahead;

• the fact that the actual vote from the first sample precincts reporting indicated

that the exit poll was actually understating the Gore vote;

• the fact that the model selected the 1998 gubernatorial election in Florida, rather

than the 1996 Presidential race, as a basis for statistical comparison, when comparisons based on the latter would have prevented us from making the call; and

• a larger than expected absentee vote.

Later, after the Gore call in Florida had been retracted, we discovered problems

in the tabulation of actual Florida votes that led to the race being called in favor

of President Bush. In one case, Volusia County, VNS passed on incorrect numbers

that were released by election officials, and this went undiscovered until after the

Bush calls had been made. Moreover, we significantly underestimated the number

of votes outstanding.

89

Based on this experience, and following the recommendations in the RTI and

other reports, we are actively pursuing numerous improvements, including the following:

• using larger sample sizes for exit polls;

• developing new procedures to account for the effects of a growing absentee and

early vote, including more extensive telephone polling of absentee voters;

• rewriting of the VNS projection and statistical models;

• working to improve the exit poll accuracy and response rate;

• completing work on the integration of The Associated Press’s tabulated vote as

a second source of information;

• developing more sophisticated quality control in the tabulated vote system and

the rest of the VNS systems; and

• upgrading and modernizing the VNS technical capabilities and infrastructure.

We are taking these steps because, as journalists, we are deeply committed to the

integrity and accuracy of our reporting. We are determined to do everything humanly possible to make sure that these mistakes will never be made again.

Our intention is to take all that we have learned and use it to improve our Election Night procedures—and thereby return to the American people the confidence

that they will receive timely and accurate Election Night information.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Savaglio.

Next we will welcome Mr. Louis Boccardi, the president and chief

executive officer of the Associated Press. Mr. Boccardi, are you also

aware that the committee is holding an investigative hearing and

when doing so we have the practice of taking testimony under

oath?

Mr. BOCCARDI. Yes.

Chairman TAUZIN. Do you have any objection to testifying under

oath?

Mr. BOCCARDI. If it is necessary to be sworn to speak, I have no

objection; but I don’t think it is necessary.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair advises you under the Rules of the

House, you are entitled to advice by counsel. Do you desire to be

advised by counsel during your testimony today?

Mr. BOCCARDI. My counsel is here. I do not anticipate that he

will testify.

Chairman TAUZIN. Okay. In that case, would you please raise

your right hand, and I will swear you in.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TAUZIN. Sir, you are sworn in, and we may receive

your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS D. BOCCARDI, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATED PRESS

Mr. BOCCARDI. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

good afternoon. Previous witnesses and those who are going to follow me have spoken and will speak in some detail about November

7 and 8. Before I say something about that, I wanted to take just

a couple of minutes very briefly to make a different point. We all

accept the seriousness of what happened; that is beyond question.

But I first want to place on the record a deep concern about the

nature and scope of the committee’s inquiry into decisions made by

journalists in the course of gathering and reporting the news.

The chairman has said in correspondence with executives of

Voter News Service and the networks that there are potential first

amendment issues raised by what you are doing. We agree with

that assessment; there certainly are. AP has serious doubts that

90

the committee and its staff, no matter how sensitive they may be,

can avoid crossing the line between appropriate government concern with the electoral process itself and, on the other hand, inappropriate government involvement with the reporting on that process by a free press. To put it more plainly, we believe that such

an official government inquiry into essentially editorial matters,

summoning the people who sit here, is inconsistent with the first

amendment values that are fundamental to our society. I say that

with conviction, but without disrespect to the important role, important, but I think a critically different role, than that of the

media that is played by the various branches of government.

I respect you. As a citizen, I benefit from you. But your job is different from mine, and a hearing such as this confuses the two.

We agree that there were serious shortcomings, call them terrible mistakes, I do, in the election reporting from Florida on November 7 and 8. These mistakes cannot be allowed to happen

again. But fixing them is a job for the Nation’s editors, not for its

legislators. What we report and when we report it are matters between us and the audience we try to serve; they are not matters

between us and our Congressmen.

The written statement I have submitted to you reflects what we

believe to be the limits of an appropriate public account to a government body of how AP did its work last November 7 and through

the morning of November 8. It is an account we have given in stories and speeches and interviews. I will not take your time to repeat it in the few minutes you allow my this afternoon.

The AP is a mutual cooperative that collects and distributes reports to its member news organizations. Those members in turn

disseminate that news to their readers, their viewers and listeners.

Like newspapers, AP is free of government licensing. Our member

editors and publishers and broadcasters hold us strictly accountable for honoring a bedrock of impartiality while vigorously defending the rights of the media to collect and report the news free of

outside interference both in the United States and overseas. And

overseas, some of our people have paid the ultimate price for this

commitment: their lives.

We have covered every Presidential campaign since 1848, the

year we were founded. AP editors staffed their newly opened office

in New York to report that Zachary Taylor had defeated Lewis

Cass and Martin Van Buren and to become the Nation’s 12th president. We meet with you this afternoon to talk about the election

of our 43rd.

Reporting the names of election winners promptly has always required substantial effort on our part, because as the committee

members know, the official vote canvas can take days or even

weeks to complete and to announce. To produce unofficial, but accurate results so the public can promptly know who won, AP collects returns at the local level, tabulates them with the greatest

care, and reports them. In this way, we are able to provide timely

results not only of national and statewide election contests, but

also State legislative races. We collect results on 6,000 elections in

a quadrennial or biennial year. That number includes the 500 or

so for which Voter News Service also has done tabulations.In terms

91

of races covered, we are the largest and, forgive me, we think the

most reliable collector of returns in the country.

Our standards for deciding when to call a projected—to declare

a projected election winner have not changed substantially. They

are not secret. We have recited them publicly before. Statewide returns from VNS and from AP’s own vote collection network are

monitored in each State bureau by individuals well versed in State

political demographics and the dynamics of individual contests. In

the case of Federal elections, analysts in Washington become engaged. We have given a public explanation several times of our

work last November. I have restated it in what I gave the committee before today.

We made one erroneous projection on election night, the early

call of Florida for Gore. It was based on flawed data and analysis

from VNS, but we take full responsibility for what we did. The

committee also knows from its review of several publicly released

studies by VNS and its members and from its conversations with

the managers of VNS, the search for the origins of the erroneous

early Florida projection is focused on certain statistical assumptions about the make-up and behavior of the voters that turned out

to be incorrect. No point in my reciting them again here.

In regard to the late Bush call, as the committee is aware, AP

did not join in the early morning victory declaration that the networks made. It was our independent editorial judgment, based on

our own vote counting and what we saw from VNS and the input

of our analysts, that the race was too close to call, as indeed it

turned out to be. It would be right to surmise that the pressure on

AP at that moment was enormous.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, AP

agrees with much that has been said here all day and will be said

after I finish by the network news chiefs. We agree, no projection

should be made until all polls in the State are closed. We agree the

Florida mistake seriously damaged the news media in the eyes of

the public we serve. We agree that VNS must be intensively reviewed to eliminate technical and any other weaknesses, administrative or anything else. What is broken must be fixed. What is

broken, I might add, includes many aspects of the election system

outside the purview and capacities of the media. But we feel deeply

the distinction that must be maintained between the editorial process and legislative inquiry, and I worry that a proceeding such as

this blurs that distinction. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Louis D. Boccardi follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LOUIS D. BOCCARDI, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Associated Press first wants to place on the record its deep concern about the

nature and scope of the Committee’s inquiry into decisions made by journalists in

the course of gathering and reporting the news.

Chairman Tauzin has stated in correspondence with executives of Voter News

Service and the networks that there are ‘‘potential First Amendment issues raised

by the nature of this inquiry.’’ We agree with the Chairman’s assessment. There certainly are.

AP has serious doubts that the Committee and its staff, no matter how sensitive

they may be, can avoid crossing the line between appropriate government concern

with the electoral process itself and, on the other hand, inappropriate government

involvement with the reporting on that process by a free press.

92

To put it more plainly, we believe that such an official government inquiry into

essentially editorial matters is inconsistent with the First Amendment values that

are fundamental to our society. That is said with conviction, but without disrespect

to the important role—important but critically different from that of the media— played by both legislative and executive branches of government.

I respect you. As a citizen, I benefit from what you do. But your job is different

from mine, and a hearing such as this one confuses the two.

We agree that there were serious shortcomings—call them terrible mistakes—in

the election reporting of November 7 and 8 and that these mistakes cannot be allowed to happen again.

But fixing them is a job for the nation’s editors and news directors, not its legislators.

What we report and when we report it are matters between us and the audience

we try to serve, not matters between us and our Congressman.

The statement that follows reflects what we believe to be the limits of an appropriate public account to a government body of how AP did its work last November

7 and through the morning of November 8. It is an account we have given in stories,

speeches and interviews.

The Associated Press is a mutual news cooperative that collects and distributes

reports to its member news organizations to be incorporated into the news products

disseminated by AP’s members to their readers, viewers and listeners. Like newspapers, AP is free of government licensing.

AP traces its origins to 1848 when a group of New York newspaper publishers

agreed to share the cost of collecting overseas dispatches as they arrived at Halifax,

Nova Scotia, at that time the first landfall for transatlantic shipping. The plan

worked well and almost immediately developed into a news service in which reports

on major events were delivered to all members.

Newspapers of the 19th Century were often fiercely partisan in their editorial

policies. The only way for their cooperative news service to satisfy all of them was

to provide reports that were strictly factual and impartial. That was the core of AP’s mission at the outset, and remains so to this day.

Article I of AP’s by laws reads in substantial part as follows: ‘‘The union for a common aim and purpose of representatives of all shades

of thought and opinion—political, social, economic, religious—is assurance the

news gathered and distributed by The Associated Press shall be as objective and

complete as human endeavor can make it.’’ AP member editors and publishers continue to hold their cooperative strictly accountable for honoring that bedrock policy, and for vigorously defending the rights

of the media to collect and report the news free of outside interference, both in the

United States and overseas. Overseas, some have paid the ultimate price for this

commitment—their lives.

AP has covered every presidential campaign since 1848, the year of its founding.

AP editors staffed their newly opened office in New York around the clock for the

first time to report that Zachary Taylor had defeated Lewis Cass and Martin Van

Buren to become the nation’s 12th president. We concern ourselves today with the

election of the nation’s 43rd.

Reporting the names of election winners promptly has always required substantial effort on AP’s part, because as the Committee members know, the official vote

canvass takes days, sometimes weeks, to complete and announce.

To produce unofficial but accurate results so that the public can promptly know

who won, AP collects returns at the local level, tabulates them with the greatest

care, and reports the totals. To do this, we hire and train special data reporters and

post them at county election offices where officials assemble the totals reported from

each precinct.

As county totals are updated throughout the night with additional precinct reports, the AP data reporters—about 5,000 of them altogether—are instructed to

relay those totals to AP, where they are added to the growing collection of results

from across the state and nation.

In this way, AP is able to provide timely results not only of national and statewide election contests but also of state legislative races and a limited number of

high-interest local elections. Altogether, AP collects totals for about 6,000 elections

in a biennial or quadrennial year. That number includes the approximately 500 elections for which the Voter News Service, and before VNS the News Election Service

(‘‘NES’’), have also tabulated results. In terms of races covered, AP is the largest

and, we believe, most reliable collector of returns in the country.

NES was a consortium formed by AP, UPI, NBC, CBS and ABC in 1964 to share

the cost of tabulating national and statewide votes. NES created a collection network much like AP’s, and AP’s separate network served as a backup to NES, as it

93

now does to VNS, in addition to producing results for the more than 5,000 races

not covered by NES and VNS.

Neither NES nor AP conducted exit polls. AP does not do them now. The broadcast networks have used them for many years, however, and in 1990 they combined

their exit polling operations into an organization known as Voter Research Service

(‘‘VRS’’). In 1993, NES and VRS merged into the present Voter News Service, of

which AP is a one-sixth partner.

VNS conducts exit polls at selected precincts on election day, tabulates actual

votes after the polls close, and through computerized statistical analysis of both sets

of data produces running forecasts throughout election night of the final results in

each race.

It is the quality and impact of those forecasts, of course, which have become a

principal focus since the night of November 7.

AP’s procedures for deciding when to declare a projected election winner have not

changed substantially in decades. They are not secret. We have recited them publicly before. Statewide returns from VNS and from AP’s own vote collection network

are monitored in each state bureau by individuals well versed in state political demographics and in the dynamics of individual contests. In the case of federal elections, analysts in Washington become engaged.

As already noted, AP has never conducted exit polling on its own, and exit poll

results only became available to the AP staff as a resource with the formation of

VNS.

Exit polls have proven useful to AP reporters and editors in that they may provide

advance notice either that the actual results appear to be consistent with expectations from pre-election polls and our own evaluation, or that a surprise may be in

store. We consider exit polls a highly valuable part of our understanding, and our

audience’s understanding, of what the voters are saying.

Valuable, though as we know, not infallible.

We have given a public explanation several times of our work last November. I

restate that widely available account here.

AP reported at 7:53 p.m. on November 7 that we had concluded from exit poll and

early reports of actual returns from some Florida counties that Vice President Gore

would be the winner in Florida. It was the only erroneous projection AP made that

night.

From their familiarity with the campaign in Florida and with pre-election poll results made public by the candidates and others, AP editors expected a very close

election. They were therefore surprised and skeptical shortly after 7 p.m. Eastern

time when the VNS exit polling data were indicating that Mr. Gore could win by

a margin of more than 6 percent.

Ordinarily, that wide a projected lead would suggest a sure outcome, but because

it ran counter to expectations no projection was made. As the exit poll data were

supplemented in the VNS system with the first actual returns from sample precincts, however, the Gore margin held up. That is why AP made the decision to report its conclusion that Florida would end the night in the Gore column.

There has been widespread discussion of the wisdom of projecting a winner at a

time when 5 percent of Florida’s polling places would still be open for several more

minutes. AP’s policy has been to comply with the 1985 agreement between Congress

and the networks that projections would be withheld for any state until a substantial majority of polling places for that state closed.

In future elections AP will forecast no final results for any state until all its polling places in all time zones are closed. I believe the networks have taken a similar

stance.

It would be wrong not to add at this point, however, that if voters were actually

discouraged by media projections from casting ballots on November 7—and we have

seen no credible evidence to show that many were—their number is eclipsed by the

tens of thousands of voters in Florida and the millions nationwide who were

disenfranchised by voting machine breakdowns, confusing ballots, lost votes, and a

host of other consequences of official error, disorganization and incompetence in administration of the elections.

In fact, problems in Florida’s official vote counting apparatus were a part of the

media’s troubles on election night. AP’s projection of a Gore victory in Florida was

withdrawn a little over two hours later at 10 p.m. It might have been retracted

sooner, but for a keypunch error by officials in Florida’s Duval County that inflated

the Gore Florida total by 40,000 votes. Until that error was found and fixed, the

Gore victory projections continued to flow from the VNS computer.

The Committee already knows from its review of several publicly released studies

by VNS and its members and from its conversations with managers of VNS that

the search for the origins of the erroneous early Florida projection is focused on cerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
94

tain statistical assumptions about the makeup and behavior of Florida voters that

turned out to be incorrect. AP’s knowledge of the details comes from the same studies to which the Committee has access, so it would serve no purpose to repeat them

here.

The owners of VNS are determining what must be done to eliminate the technical

and organizational weaknesses that made the early misdirection in Florida possible.

As the Committee is aware, AP did not join in the early morning projection of

a Bush victory.

As AP has publicly reconstructed events with the help of the reports the Committee has seen, the VNS computer system was indicating at about 2 a.m. November 8 that only 180,000 votes remained to be counted. In fact, because turnout had

been higher than the VNS forecast, there were still twice that many votes outstanding. Since we knew a high proportion of the uncounted ballots were in heavily

Democratic precincts, Vice President Gore still had a much better chance of overtaking President Bush than it appeared from the VNS reports, despite an apparent

margin of 50,000 votes.

It wasn’t really 50,000 votes, however. As the Committee is also aware, there had

been another official error. Because of a defect in a data storage device in a Volusia

County election computer, President Bush’s statewide lead was overstated by 20,000

votes, further bolstering the impression that Mr. Gore had no chance to catch up.

The correction of the Volusia County error did not appear in either the AP or the

VNS tabulations until after the networks had committed themselves, declaring

President Bush the winner at about 2:15 a.m.

AP was not yet ready to follow suit. Even before the Volusia County correction

was made, and even allowing for the inaccurate VNS estimate of the number of remaining votes, AP believed Mr. Gore retained a slim chance of overtaking President

Bush. That judgment was based on the collective wisdom of AP reporters and editors in both Miami and Washington.

The margin separating the two candidates had descended in the AP tabulation

from over 100,000 at 1 a.m. on November 8 to about 45,000 shortly after 2 a.m. In

the next 15 minutes, it plummeted to less than 16,000. AP continued to report that

it was too close to call.

Because the hour was late, already past the deadlines of many newspapers, and

because the networks were reporting that President Bush had won, editors around

the country wondered why they had received no such declaration from AP. Many

of them called our bureaus or our general editing desk in New York to demand an

explanation.

As another hour passed and the pressure increased, however, President Bush’s

lead continued to shrink. Shortly after 3 a.m., it stood at just over 6,300. At 3:11

a.m. AP transmitted a note to editors and broadcasters on its news wires advising

them that with 6,000 votes separating the candidates’ totals and with votes outstanding in heavily Democratic Broward and Palm Beach, the outcome remained

uncertain.

Just minutes later, the gap closed to roughly 2,000, and there it remained.

AP is proud of its century and a half of election result tabulation and political

reporting. We believe our experience and our commitment to accuracy and fairness

have produced an extremely valuable service for our membership and for the American public.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you very much. I might add that we

all share a mutual respect, I hope we understand that, for our different roles and we appreciate your concerns and we have tried to

be very sensitive to them throughout the process.

Let me add one fact. I don’t believe that AP was invited to testify

in the 1980’s. But I know the networks were, and they did participate in hearings in the 1980’s. And we did have these conversations in the 1980’s as a precedent to the ones we are having today.

Mr. BOCCARDI. We were not involved.

Chairman TAUZIN. I don’t believe you were involved; that is correct.

Let me also add, and I know this is not a rule of our committee,

but you all may respectfully decline to answer any question if you

think we are intruding. We will always give you that right, and I

hope you will use it lightly. Obviously we are here to find the truth

95

and the facts, but you always have that right in respect for the different roles that we play.

Let me turn to our next witness, Mr. David Westin, president of

ABC News in New York. David, if you will join me in the process.

David, under the committee practice for investigative hearings, it

is the practice to take testimony under oath. Do you have any objection to testifying under oath?

Mr. WESTIN. No, sir.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair advises you that under the Rules

of the House, the rules of the committee, you are entitled to advice

by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony today?

Mr. WESTIN. No, thank you.

Chairman TAUZIN. Then if you will raise your right hand, I will

swear you in.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TAUZIN. You are properly sworn under oath, and you

may give your testimony, sir.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID WESTIN, PRESIDENT, ABC NEWS

Mr. WESTIN. Thank you. I appear before the Chair and the members of the committee today to talk about ABC News coverage of

the election in November of 2000. In addition to a copy of my remarks, I also would like to submit for the record a copy of the February 8 statement that we submitted to committee staff earlier in

which we go through in detail.

Chairman TAUZIN. Without objection, it is admitted into the

record.

Mr. WESTIN. Thank you very much. Those of us at ABC News

are very proud of the job that we have done over many years in

covering elections. From the days of Frank Reynolds and Howard

K. Smith through the days of David Brinkley, to the team of journalists headed by Peter Jennings today, we have done everything

within our power to make sure that we report elections to our audience in an accurate and timely fashion. There is literally nothing

that we do that is more important to us. I am pleased that by and

large, there have not been exceptions. We have succeeded in our

mission of being accurate and timely.

But let me start right at the outset and say in November, we

failed twice in the projections we made for President in Florida.

Those were serious mistakes. We take them seriously. ABC News

is responsible for those and as the head of ABC News I am responsible for them. But ultimately, the American people will hold us responsible for what happened.

We all are mindful as well, as the Chair has said more than once

today, that in our system of government, it is ultimately the marketplace of ideas protected by the United States Constitution that

will correct those mistakes for us. They provide the check on us,

not the government.

The morning after the election on November 8, early in the

morning, we began our investigation to find out as much as we possibly could about what happened and what went wrong. To answer

the question earlier from the Chair, that investigation was conducted by internal people from ABC News who are responsible for

96

our standards and practices, by in-house counsel from ABC, Inc.,

which is our corporate parent, and ultimately by the outside law

firm of Verner, Liipfert located here in Washington. So that is who

participated in the investigation.

From the investigation we learned a number of things, many of

which, frankly, have been reported here. Early on, 2 weeks after

the election, we came out with a statement in which we addressed

a number of the issues that have been raised here, both the commitment to do whatever it takes to get VNS fixed; to address

things like absentee ballots; to address things like errors that arise

in exit polls; also to support a change, frankly, in ABC News policy

so that we will no longer project the winner of a State until all

polls, every one of them have closed within the State, which is, as

you indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, a change from what we talked

about in 1985.

We also in that early stage said it was critically important as we

go forward that we are much clearer and more emphatic about

what a projection is and what it isn’t. It is not reporting the ultimate certified result of a race; it is a statistical estimate which always has a margin of error in it, and we need to do a better job

of explaining that to all of our viewers.

We are committed to making whatever changes need to be made.

At the same time, I have to say with all of the problems we have

talked about today and I have heard about with VNS and with exit

polls and with absentee ballots, all of which are terribly important

and need to be addressed, we could have served our viewers much

better if on election night we had been clearer about what was

going on when we were making a projection. We have tried to do

that over the years, but we have fallen back in part, frankly, because of the success of the process over many years. I think it bears

reminding that for many, many years this process has generated

accurate projections. And even on November 7, ABC News made

some 100 projections of races; and we were wrong in one instance,

a very serious one and we take it very seriously, but we do need

to put it into perspective.

In addition, in reflecting on our system and how it works, we

concluded that we could have served our viewers better if we had

done a better job of insulating the key people, our professional analysts who are looking at the data as they come in and looking at

the statistical models, had insulated them better from the competitive pressures that inevitably arise. I can tell you that if you sit

there and four of your competitors have projected the next President of the United States and you haven’t, there is a lot of competitive pressure, no matter what anybody tells you.

You will notice, I haven’t really talked about VNS and there is

a reason for that. We are a co-owner of VNS, we are on the board

of VNS. We are responsible, ultimately, for the accuracy of the output of VNS, just as if ABC News people were out there conducting

all the exit polls and gathering all the raw vote data from the counties and from the precincts, and I do not want to shrink from that

responsibility. I have to be direct and honest with you about it.

Having said that and having reviewed what we have reviewed at

this point, I must also tell you that I continue to believe that properly corrected, and there are a number of corrections we can talk

97

about some more, properly corrected, the VNS approach supported

by our decision desk and our professional analysts remains the best

and most accurate way of doing timely reporting of the election,

which is our only goal, ultimately.

Now, in conclusion, let me address for a moment the possibility

of effect on voter behavior of early projections, because there has

been a lot of discussion about that today. From what I know, and

I am not a professional in this area, some academics have looked

at it, it is inconclusive, it is complicated. Nevertheless, as I said

earlier, we are committed to try to help address this in two ways.

No. 1, not to project the race in any State until all of the polls,

not just the substantial majority, have closed in that State.

But No. 2, we wholeheartedly support the efforts of certain members of this committee to adopt a uniform poll closing time.

We think that is the right approach and speaking personally, I

would be perfectly happy with a world in which we don’t make any

projections, in which there is a uniform time for closing and there

is a system of voting in this country that is so reliable and so instantaneous that ABC News, in future elections, can simply get on

the air and say, these are the actual bona fide, certified results. I

would be very pleased with that. But until we can get to that time

in this country, ABC News, I can assure you, will remain committed to doing our very best to reporting accurately and in a timely fashion on all elections. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of David Westin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID WESTIN, PRESIDENT, ABC NEWS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am here today to discuss ABC

News’ reporting on the presidential election of 2000. I am submitting with a copy

of these remarks the complete ABC News statement concerning its election reporting last year.

Those of us at ABC News are proud of our record of covering elections. From the

days of Howard K. Smith and Harry Reasoner, through David Brinkley, to our

present group of journalists headed by Peter Jennings, we have always done everything in our power to bring an accurate and timely account of the nation’s elections

to our audience. There is nothing we do at ABC News that is more important than

covering elections.

With remarkably few exceptions, we have succeeded in our mission of accurate

and timely reporting of elections. But last year there was an important exception:

the projections we made of the presidential race in Florida. The fact that this was

one of the closest presidential races in history is no excuse; the fact that we correctly projected the results of almost 100 other races that night is no excuse; the

fact that others had similar difficulties is no excuse. Ours was a serious mistake

for which we are responsible and for which the American people rightly hold us accountable. At the same time, all of us are mindful that in our system it is the marketplace of ideas created under our Constitution—not the government—that provides the check when we in the press make a mistake.

The morning after the election, at ABC News we began an investigation to determine everything we could about what went wrong in our Florida projections. Although we continue to believe that our system for making projections is fundamentally sound, we have found several things that we must correct and several things

that we must do differently or better. We are committed to doing everything we can

to correct the problems we have identified.

In brief, our review shows the following problems:

1. We did not accurately anticipate the absentee balloting in Florida.

2. We did not adequately protect against the error that comes from some people not

responding to exit polls.

3. People made mistakes in putting actual Florida vote tallies into the system.

4. The second ABC News projection in Florida was based on a dramatically mistaken estimate of the remaining, uncounted vote.

98

1 ABC News never projected a winner in the presidential race in Oregon, which was resolved

several days later, after the last of the absentee ballots were counted. In addition to the projections in the race for President, ABC News made 45 projections in races for the Senate and for

Governor, all of which were correct. ABC News never projected a winner in the key Senate race

in Washington, which was ultimately resolved several days later as well.

5. All election projections are based on a comparison of the current election with

the past election that appears to be most similar. In Florida, the computer

model chose the wrong past election for comparison.

In our written statement of February 8, we set out the various steps we will take

to avoid each of these problems in the future. But even with all of the problems that

affected projections in Florida on election night, ABC News could have served its

audience better if it had been clearer and more emphatic about the nature of election projections and their basis. No matter how reliable, projections are just that—

statistical estimates based on past experience and the data available. They are not

the same as reporting the actual results of the election, and they are always subject

to some margin of error (as was shown so dramatically in Florida). In addition, ABC

News could have protected itself against error by resisting the inevitable competitive pressures that came with knowing that other news organizations were projecting the next President of the United States while we were not.

Please notice that in my discussion I have not referred to the Voter News Service.

As an owner, we are responsible for the accuracy of what VNS did in 2000—as responsible as if ABC News had itself conducted all of the exit polls and gathered all

of the actual vote tallies across the country. With all of the criticism of VNS, based

on everything we now know, we continue to believe that an improved VNS remains

the best way for us to gather accurate, timely information about individual races

on election night.

Finally, there has been much discussion over the years of the possible effect of

election night reporting on whether voters go to the polls. I know that there has

been some academic work on this subject, that it is a complex area, and that the

academic work is largely inconclusive. Nevertheless, ABC News from now on will

not project the results of a race in a state where any polls remain open—even if

it is a minority of the polls.

In addition, some—including some on this Committee—have advocated adopting

a uniform time across the country for all polls to close. ABC News wholeheartedly

supports such proposals. Indeed, I personally would welcome the day when, shortly

after all the polls closed at a set time, we could simply report the actual results of

all of the elections because they had been quickly tabulated by a reliable, instantaneous system. But until that day arrives, ABC News will remain committed to providing its audience with the most accurate and most timely reporting of elections

possible.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF ABC NEWS CONCERNING THE 2000 ELECTION PROJECTIONS

On November 7, 2000, the United States set out to elect a new President. Leading

up to Election Day, all indications were that the race would be very close. As it

turned out, it was the closest race in recent history (in terms of electoral votes) and

was not resolved for over a month, when the Supreme Court of the United States

ended the legal challenges to the vote count in the State of Florida.

During the evening hours of November 7 and the early morning hours of November 8, ABC News projected the winner of the presidential race in 49 states and the

District of Columbia.1 In each of these but one, ABC News’ projections were correct.

But in what turned out to be the key state of Florida, ABC News made two projections, one of them mistaken and the other premature.

In this statement, we discuss the practices and procedures followed by ABC News

in making its election projections, the reasons for the flawed projections in Florida,

and the steps we are taking to prevent a recurrence of the mistakes we made on

Election Night. This statement follows a comprehensive review conducted by ABC

News, ABC’s in-house counsel, and ABC’s outside counsel. Among other things, we:

(1) reviewed transcripts and videotapes of ABC News’ election coverage; (2) interviewed members of the ABC News team responsible for making election projections

and producing ABC News’ election coverage; (3) reviewed archival copies of computer screens containing some of the data and statistical models provided to ABC

News on Election Day by Voter News Service (‘‘VNS’’); and (4) reviewed post-election

reports by VNS and others analyzing the Election Night projections.

99

A. ABC NEWS’ PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES IN PROJECTING ELECTION RESULTS

1. Background

For many years, ABC News has included in its election coverage projections of

likely winners in individual races. When done properly, such projections provide our

viewers with highly reliable and timely insights into the election, including the likely outcome of races in the various states.

These projections go beyond mere reporting of actual vote tallies as they come in.

They involve the interpretation of sophisticated statistical models that evaluate the

exit poll and actual vote data in various ways. Although grounded in mathematics

and science, projections of likely outcomes always depend in critical part on the informed judgments of knowledgeable analysts. To make these judgments, ABC News

relies on teams of experts, including political scientists and statisticians, with the

experience and acumen necessary to interpret the data properly.

2. The Role of the Voter News Service

In 2000, as in previous years, ABC News relied heavily on data and statistical

modeling from VNS in making its election projections. VNS was established in 1994

through the merger of two predecessor organizations. The first, the News Election

Service, was founded in 1964 and collected raw vote data. The second, Voter Research and Surveys, was formed in 1989 and did three things: (1) polled voters as

they exited the polling place; (2) reported the exit poll results; and (3) used statistical models to help project race results based on the exit polls and on vote data.

Since 1994, VNS has performed the functions of both of these predecessor organizations.

VNS was founded in 1994 by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and the Associated Press;

in 1997, Fox became a full member. The members collectively share the costs of operating VNS and govern it through a Board of Directors consisting of one voting representative from each member. VNS data and analysis are provided to all of the

members equally. In addition, many other news organizations subscribe to VNS,

paying fees that partially defray operating expenses in exchange for projections and

some VNS data. By sharing the costs among the members and subscribers, VNS collectively provides a better service to all than any individual member or subscriber

could afford on its own. As one of the owners of VNS, with a substantial role in

its management and supervision, ABC News (with the other members) is ultimately

responsible for the reliability and accuracy of VNS’ product.

Each election, VNS collects survey responses provided to VNS personnel by voters

as they leave polling places (‘‘exit polls’’), actual vote tallies from selected precincts,

and the vote count from all reporting counties, cities, or towns nationwide. VNS

loads this material into a central computer that feeds information to VNS members

and subscribers. VNS also provides members with statistical analyses under various

VNS models, which use different methods to extrapolate from the data received by

VNS at that juncture. Some models include pre-election poll data; some include exit

poll data; some models use geographical distinctions within a state; some reflect political distinctions within a state; others rely on actual vote tallies as reported by

precincts or by counties. VNS models also estimate the remaining vote outstanding

for precincts not yet reporting, and provide a check on the accuracy of exit poll data

by comparing that data to actual vote tallies as they come in.

Before polls close and actual vote tallies become available, the VNS models rely

upon exit poll data provided by VNS, together with various pre-election poll data.

As actual vote tallies become available from precincts, these data are included in

the models, replacing exit poll data. When county data is available, it is included

in several other models.

Early in the afternoon of Election Day, VNS begins providing its members with

preliminary results of the first exit polls taken. As the day progresses, VNS updates

these results, including later exit poll data and actual vote tabulations. All of these

data are provided to VNS members so that they may evaluate for themselves whether and when to project the results in a race. VNS also makes its own projections

for the benefit of its members and subscribers.

Prior to the election of 2000, those most closely involved with VNS can remember

only one instance in which a VNS projection ultimately proved wrong. In the 1996

New Hampshire Senate race, exit poll data available at the time the polls closed

showed the Democratic candidate to have such a commanding lead that VNS members (including ABC News) projected the outcome of the race. When the actual vote

tallies began to come in, it became apparent that the exit poll data were seriously

flawed and the projections were retracted. After the 1996 error, VNS conducted its

own study and retained outside experts to examine what happened and how to

avoid similar mistakes in the future. Despite intensive study, the experts could find

100

no definitive solution to the problem that could be applied across states and elections. In 2000, ABC News included as part of its team two of the experts most

knowledgeable about the 1996 New Hampshire race, so that they could brief the

other ABC News experts responsible for making projections.

3. ABC News’ Decision Desk

On Election Day, ABC News employs a separate unit of professionals charged

with deciding whether and when to make projections. This group is generally referred to collectively as the ABC News ‘‘Decision Desk.’’ It is headed by an expert

journalist who is experienced both in covering previous elections and in the statistical analysis of elections.

The Decision Desk on November 7 consisted in principal part of four decision

teams. Each decision team included two individuals chosen for their experience in

covering past elections and/or their background in statistics or political science. The

50 states and the District of Columbia were divided among three teams, each responsible for making projections of statewide elections (for President, for Senate,

and for Governor) in certain states. The fourth team was assigned to follow certain

races in the House of Representatives that ABC News had identified in advance as

having particular importance in the election. In order for ABC News to make a projection in any race, both members of the decision team assigned to that race had

to agree that the projection was justified.

The ABC News Decision Desk also included a team of two individuals reporting

directly to the head of the Desk and responsible for monitoring the overall presidential race and the battle for control of the Senate. ABC News also retained two

experts who were posted at VNS headquarters as a liaison between the ABC News

Decision Desk and VNS.

The Decision Desk independently studies the data as they are reported by VNS,

analyzes the results indicated by the VNS application of the statistical models to

these data, and decides whether and when it is appropriate for ABC News to project

an outcome in each race. Sometimes this projection comes after VNS has made its

own projection; often it comes before VNS does so.

If the margin reflected in exit polls is sufficiently large to justify making a projection based on these data alone, ABC News may be able to project results at the time

polls close. In determining whether it can make an accurate projection based on exit

polls and other research at the time of poll closing, ABC News relies on the following considerations:

1. the extent to which all of the exit poll data from the several exit polls taken

throughout the day are complete and available;

2. the size of the lead for a particular candidate indicated in the exit poll models;

3. a comparison of the margin indicated in the exit polls with a statistical calculation of the margin of error;

4. a comparison of the results generated by the different VNS statistical models;

5. prior estimates of the race in the particular state;

6. special factors that might affect the reliability of exit poll results, such as the size

of past absentee balloting in the state and the distance restrictions placed on

VNS personnel conducting local exit polls;

7. past experience in projecting results in the particular state or in states having

similar characteristics; and

8. any special messages from VNS concerning problems or irregularities that may

have arisen during the collection of exit poll data.

If exit poll results do not demonstrate a sufficiently decisive lead for one candidate after assessment of these factors, then ABC News considers the following factors as actual vote tallies arrive, in addition to exit poll data, pre-election estimates,

and the patterns of prior elections:

1. the size of the lead and the margin of error indicated in the various models as

actual votes from the precincts are substituted for exit poll results;

2. the size of the lead and the statistical margin of error indicated in the models

analyzing actual vote tallies in selected precincts and in overall county results;

3. the degree to which the exit poll data for the state differed from actual vote tallies in precincts where exit poll data are available;

4. the number, percentage, and location of precincts from which actual vote tallies

have been received;

5. the number, percentage and location of counties from which actual vote tallies

have been received;

6. the likely outstanding absentee vote not yet counted;

7. the likely other vote not yet counted; and

8. the percentage of the remaining vote outstanding that the trailing candidate

would have to garner in order to prevail.

101

2 VNS automatically archived the primary data (or ‘‘decision screens’’) it sent to members at

only 10 and 40 minutes past each hour on Election Day. Minute-by-minute screens reflecting

then-available VNS data were not retained.

In each case, the question is whether ABC News in its independent journalistic

judgment can conclude that the data make it appropriate to project the outcome in

a given race—that is, that the results are decisive enough to make a projection with

great confidence that it will be right.

In addition to these steps, ABC News makes an effort to say explicitly on the air

that it is reporting a projection, not an accomplished fact. And, since 1985, ABC

News has followed the policy of not projecting any statewide race until the polls in

the state have closed. In the few states with multiple poll closing times, ABC News

has not projected the results of races until the substantial majority of the polls have

closed.

B. ABC NEWS’ ELECTION PROJECTIONS IN 2000

On the morning of November 8, ABC News initiated an investigation to determine

the cause of its erroneous and premature projections in the Florida presidential race

and the measures it should take to avoid similar problems in the future. In addition,

VNS conducted its own internal investigation and—at the urging of ABC News and

other members—commissioned a thorough review of its actions by outside experts.

These investigations lead us to the following primary findings and conclusions about

the problems in Florida and some areas for improvement.

1. The Flawed Florida Projections

a. ABC News’ Projection for Vice President Gore—The first of ABC News’ Florida

presidential projections in the 2000 election came shortly before 8:00 p.m. EST on

November 7. VNS projected that Mr. Gore would win the presidential race in Florida at 7:52 p.m., after some 90% of the polls in state had closed (but before polls

in the panhandle of the state were to close at 8:00 p.m.). At 7:55, ABC News Radio

reported that ABC News projected that Mr. Gore would win in Florida. At that time,

the ABC Television Network was in commercial and local broadcast time. ABC

News did not project Mr. Gore to win in Florida on the ABC Television Network

until shortly after 8:00 p.m., after all polls in the state had closed.

A review of the computer data preserved by VNS that night 2 indicates that, as

of 6:40 p.m., exit poll data and statistical models revealed a lead for Mr. Gore in

Florida, but not by a sufficient margin to warrant a projection. As a result, ABC

News did not project a winner in the Florida race for President when 90% of the

Florida polls closed at 7:00 p.m.

By 7:40 p.m., VNS was reporting actual vote tallies from eight of the sample precincts. These actual vote tallies significantly reduced the margin of error for the projections under the various statistical models, and therefore indicated a greater confidence in the accuracy of the projections. Based on these indications, and in accord

with the factors listed above, the ABC News Decision Desk projected that Mr. Gore

would win in Florida shortly before 8:00 p.m. At 8:10 p.m. and 8:40 p.m., the numbers continued to show a solid lead for Mr. Gore in Florida. In fact, at that time,

a comparison of the actual vote tallies with the exit poll data in those eight precincts suggested that the VNS exit poll models had actually understated the extent

of Mr. Gore’s lead in the state.

At 9:10 p.m., the statistical models continued to indicate sufficient strength to justify the projection for Mr. Gore—even with 36% of the county vote tallies reported.

But the precinct models showed some weakening. At about 9:40 p.m., VNS began

to send messages to its members that called into question the accuracy of the Florida projection. And by 10:10 p.m., the models incorporating real vote tallies were

mixed, with some continuing to project Mr. Gore the winner with sufficient confidence to warrant the projection, but the county vote model pointing to Mr. Bush,

although without sufficient certainty of accuracy to warrant a projection in his

favor. At approximately 10:00 p.m., ABC News withdrew its projection that Mr.

Gore would prevail in Florida.

Based on subsequent reviews, it is now apparent that there were three principal

causes of the flawed projection for Mr. Gore in Florida. First, the exit poll data actually overstated—rather than understated—Mr. Gore’s lead. Although the risk of

such error normally is checked by the comparison of the exit poll data in the first

several precincts with actual vote tallies in these precincts, in this particular case

the first precincts reporting actual vote were atypical of the larger sample.

Second, the first Florida projection was based in part on a mistaken estimation

of the absentee vote in Florida. Although VNS anticipated a significant absentee

vote in the state and expected that the absentee vote would favor Mr. Bush, it

102

turned out that there was a much larger vote than anticipated, and that vote was

slightly more favorable to Governor Bush than predicted.

Finally, the projection for Mr. Gore resulted in part from the VNS system failing

to choose the most appropriate past race to use in its models. It chose the 1998 Governor’s race, rather than the 1996 presidential race. As it turned out, the latter was

more similar in pattern and result than the former. Absent any of these three VNS

errors—the mistaken check on the exit poll data, the mistaken estimation of the absentee vote, and the choice of the wrong past race to use in its models—ABC News

likely would not have found the data sufficient to make the first projection in the

Florida presidential race.

b. ABC News’ Projection for Governor Bush—From 10:10 p.m. until 1:40 a.m. EST,

the data and statistical models continued to be mixed, with all but one model (the

one that included actual vote count from the counties) indicating that Mr. Gore

would prevail. By 2:10 a.m., however, the data provided by VNS indicated that a

full 96% of all precincts had reported and that, given the projections of the remaining outstanding vote, Mr. Gore would have had to win over 63% of the remaining

vote to prevail. Based on these data and these estimates, ABC News projected at

2:20 a.m. that Mr. Bush would prevail in the Florida presidential race.

It now appears that two primary factors precipitated the second ABC News projection for President in Florida. First, raw vote data coming into VNS from Volusia

County significantly overstated Mr. Bush’s totals and significantly understated Mr.

Gore’s totals. Normally such variations in a single county would not be significant,

but with the race in Florida as close as it turned out to be, this variation alone led

ABC News to have more confidence in its projection than was warranted.

Second, the VNS model projected significantly fewer outstanding votes at 2:10

a.m. than in fact was the case, leading the VNS model to underestimate the outstanding vote and thereby to overestimate the percentage of the vote that Mr. Gore

would have to receive to prevail. Once again, these mistakes in the data and the

models led ABC News to make a flawed projection.

2. Projections in Other States

As noted above, ABC News made 49 other projections of state races for President

on November 7-8, and each one was correct. Overall, leaving Florida aside, ABC

News correctly projected that Mr. Bush would prevail in 29 states and that Mr.

Gore would prevail in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Of these, ABC News

projected the winner at the time of poll closing in 28 states, including 16 states for

Mr. Bush and 11 states and the District of Columbia for Mr. Gore. Of the 21 states

in which ABC News waited to project a presidential winner until after polls had

closed (other than Florida), ABC News projected 13 for Mr. Bush and 8 for Mr.

Gore.

Some have questioned not the accuracy, but the timing of some of our projections.

In particular, they have questioned the delay in the projection of some of the states

won by Mr. Bush. Based on our review and the analyses described above, the timing

of each of these projections is fully explainable by the data available at various

times of the night, the application of uniform statistical models to those data, and

prior experience with the states involved. There is no basis whatsoever for concluding that there was any intentional bias on the part of anyone who took part

in the projection process at ABC News.

In determining whether and when to make a projection, there are a variety of factors ABC News considers, as set forth above. Significantly, however, the ultimate

actual margin of victory in a state in no way indicates the speed with which a projection could have been made with a sufficient assurance of accuracy. Rather, the

question is whether at any given time the margin shown by the exit poll (and, when

available, actual vote tallies) is sufficiently larger than the statistical margin of

error that ABC News can make a projection with a high level of confidence that it

will be accurate. This statistical margin of error can be affected by a number of

things, including the number of precincts sampled, the relative homogeneity of the

state in question, and the percentage of actual vote available at the time of a projection.

This last factor is extremely important, as the ability of VNS and ABC News to

assess the accuracy of close exit poll data and the certainty of a projection often depends on how quickly a given state reports actual vote data. In some states, precincts and counties report vote totals relatively quickly, and may facilitate an earlier

projection; in others, vote totals arrive more slowly, and may delay the projection

of the race.

A careful review of ABC News projections in states other than Florida shows that

in each case—whether for Mr. Gore or for Mr. Bush—the projection was not only

103

accurate, but was made at a reasonable time, given the available data and the need

for great confidence in its accuracy.

Some have also raised concerns that, before all polls have closed in a state with

multiple poll closing times, (like Florida) projections of race could influence voting

behavior in other parts of the state. There have also been claims that projecting

winners in presidential races in states where polls have closed may affect voting behavior in other states where polls remain open. These questions have been researched extensively for many years, with no clear answer.

C. AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Based on our experience in making the Florida projections, our post-election review of ABC News’ practices and procedures in general, and our review of other reports about the events of Election Night, we have identified the following primary

areas that warrant further attention and improvement.

1. Improve the Accuracy and Reliability of VNS’ Data and Statistical Analyses

VNS has a long and enviable track record of accuracy in projecting races over the

years. In the November election, however, VNS fell short.

In the days since the election, VNS’ performance has been analyzed extensively

by internal and external investigations. Most recently, the VNS Board of Directors

commissioned and released a detailed report by an independent consultant, the Research Triangle Institute (‘‘RTI’’) of North Carolina, containing comprehensive findings and recommendations.

On the basis of the RTI report and our own review, we believe VNS must do a

better job in future elections in the following principal areas:

First, it must account more accurately for the size and likely outcome of absentee

ballots. In 2000, VNS made special efforts to account for absentee ballots in Washington, Oregon, and California by conducting telephone polling targeted at these

ballots. In Florida, however (as noted above), it relied upon a rough estimate of the

size and the outcome of the ballots. In the future, one or both of two things must

happen: (1) VNS should make similar, targeted efforts in all states where there is

reason to believe that absentee balloting may affect the accuracy of projections; and/

or (2) ABC News will need to take into account the increased risk of inaccuracy from

VNS’ not having made such efforts and, as a result, be more conservative in its projections in those states.

Second, VNS must do a better job of quality control. For example, in 2000, there

was a plan to include in the VNS computer models process data from the separate

Associated Press reporting of actual vote tallies. This would have provided a check

on the accuracy of VNS’ data. ABC News believed on Election Night that this had

been done; as it turned out, it was not. In the future, the AP (or other, similar

sources of data) should be included in election projections—either by VNS itself or

by ABC News if VNS is unable to include such data.

Third, VNS must make adjustments in its statistical models to ensure that the

best past election in a state is selected for comparison with exit poll and raw vote

data. VNS itself has suggested that one solution may be to consult more than a single past election.

Fourth, VNS must devote further study to the causes of discrepancies between

exit poll data and actual vote returns within the same precinct. In any given race,

such discrepancies can favor either candidate, but on average over time they have

been shown to favor Democratic candidates somewhat more than Republican. Experts believe these discrepancies may result in part from the refusal of some people

to respond to exit poll surveys as they leave the polls. However, studies have not

shown a clear direct relationship between overall response rate and exit poll accuracy. Moreover, the size of the discrepancy and whether it favors the Republican or

the Democrat is highly variable from precinct to precinct, state to state, and year

to year, and experts have yet to develop an overall statistical solution. Nevertheless,

we must work to develop reliable ways either to reduce the causes of the discrepancies or to compensate for them.

Fifth, VNS must improve its system to provide better correction on inaccuracies

in exit poll data. As discussed above, it was previously thought that the comparison

of actual vote totals in six selected precincts against exit poll results in those same

precincts would give some reasonably accurate indication of the reliability of the exit

poll data in all the precincts. The experience in 2000 with the exit poll data in Florida demonstrates that this is not the case.

Finally, VNS must do a better job estimating the outstanding vote. This is a crucial piece of information in any close election.

Based on its review, ABC News at this point believes that with improvements

such as those outlined above VNS can remain a highly reliable means for analyzing

104

and reporting election results. Any system, however, no matter how sophisticated

and how reliable, is inherently fallible. ABC News will remain open, therefore, to

any reasonable alternative sources of information that can help to improve the accuracy of its election projections.

2. Further Insulate ABC News’ Decision Desk from Competitive Pressure

In the past, and in 2000, the ABC News Decision Desk has been located separately from the remainder of ABC News editorial operations on Election Night.

Communications between the Decision Desk and those responsible for ABC News

election coverage have been structured through a single senior producer located in

the control room.

Until now, however, ABC News has not sought to restrict access of members of

its Decision Desk to the reporting of other news organizations, including competing

television news organizations. It was thought that the knowledge of what other

credible news organizations were and were not projecting could be helpful to the

Desk in determining when it was appropriate to make a projection.

Competition, in news reporting as in other enterprises, can be a good thing. It can

spur us to work harder, do better, be faster. But competition that encourages a journalist to report a story prematurely is bad. In the particular instance of the Decision

Desk, it is most important that the individuals making projections do so based on

two things: the data provided to them (from exit polls, from actual vote tallies, and

from statistical models), and their own experience and judgment. They should not

be distracted or influenced by the decisions of other news organizations.

3. Improve the Manner in which ABC News Reports and Discusses its Projections

Although valid statistical methods applied to raw vote tallies and exit poll data

are the best and most accurate means of projecting election outcomes, they also pose

risks if not properly used and explained. First and foremost, they are projections— not actual results of elections. As such, there is always some margin for error, some

chance that they will ultimately be proved wrong.

ABC News for some time has attempted to describe its predictions of the likely

winners in election contests as ‘‘projections.’’ We try to avoid saying on air that we are ‘‘calling’’ a race with the implication that the election is truly over simply because we feel sufficiently confident in the statistics to make a prediction. This policy

was generally followed on November 7-8 in the initial announcements of projections

in the presidential races in individual states.

In reviewing the transcript of ABC News’ Election Night coverage, however, it appears that ABC News did not make sufficiently clear to our audience the nature of

projections in election races in several respects. First, after having initially described the prediction as a ‘‘projection,’’ ABC News journalists on the air sometimes

later referred to the candidate as having ‘‘won’’ the race in a particular state. Second, we were not always as careful in our use of language in making projections

in races for the House of representatives, the Senate, and Governors. Third, ABC

News did not explain adequately to our viewers what a projection means. We did

not make it clear that, as with any statistical projection, there is a margin of error.

We would not be reporting the projection unless, according to our analysis, the margin of error is sufficiently small. But we need to do a better job of pointing out that

our projection can be wrong.

D. CONCLUSION

In light of our review, ABC News will implement the following changes and clarifications to its practices and procedures in making election projections. Many of

these measures were announced on November 22, 2000.

1. ABC News will project the winner in a race in a given state only after the last

scheduled poll closing time in that state.

2. ABC News continues to support a uniform national poll closing time. We also support efforts to reform balloting processes to enable faster and more reliable official tabulation and reporting of vote totals.

3. ABC News will continue to make projections only if they are justified by ABC

News’ independent analysis of the data and the relevant statistical models.

4. In making and discussing projections, ABC News will explain to its viewers that

they are informed, statistically based estimates of the probable results of elections. Projections are not reports of the actual, final results of elections.

5. ABC News will take all reasonable steps to insulate those involved directly in

making projections from the pressures of competition from other news organizations.

6. ABC News will ensure that voting data from the Associated Press is fully incorporated into its projections, providing a check on inaccurate information. ABC

105

News will remain open to additional sources of information on election night,

including national exit polling conducted by organizations other than VNS.

7. ABC News will support a continuing comprehensive review of and improvement

in the operation of VNS, including improvements in the collection of data, reporting of data, and application of statistical models to those data. Further,

ABC News will provide its share of resources to ensure that these improvements and upgrades are made as quickly as possible.

Chairman TAUZIN. Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News in

York. Mr. Heyward, if you will help me through the process again.

As you are aware, the committee is holding an investigative

hearing. When doing so, we have the practice of taking testimony

under oath. Do you have any objection to testifying under oath?

Mr. HEYWARD. Given that it is your practice, Mr. Chairman, it

is okay with me.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you, sir.

The chairman advises you that under the Rules of the House and

the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be advised by counsel.

Mr. HEYWARD. No, thanks.

Chairman TAUZIN. Do you desire—you do not. In any case then,

would you please raise your right hand and we will swear you in.

[Witness sworn.]

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW HEYWARD, PRESIDENT, CBS NEWS

Mr. HEYWARD. Thanks very much Chairman Tauzin, Congressman Dingell, members of the committee. I am Andrew Heyward,

president of CBS News; and I appreciate the opportunity to turn

on the microphone and to provide my comments on this subject,

news coverage of Election Night 2000.

CBS News and the other network news operations made very,

very serious mistakes that night, and they are mistakes that all of

us at the table and certainly I deeply regret. Our Florida flip-flops

were deeply embarrassing to us; and more importantly, damaging

to our most important asset, which is the hard-won credibility we

fought for over the years with our viewers and listeners and Internet users. It is evident, in retrospect, we should not have called

Florida for either candidate. Our method of projecting winners, one

that, as you have heard, has produced only six bad calls in over

2000 races since the 1960’s, failed us this time; and as a wellknown candidate would say, failed us big time in the very State

that held the key to this election.

That is why everyone at this table has acknowledged the problems; and I think moved very quickly to address them, not in response to outside pressure or to criticism, but at our own initiative.

The American people who are our viewers and listeners deserve

nothing less than this.

On November 14, CBS News appointed a distinguished threeperson panel, including a well-known outside expert, Kathleen Hall

Jamieson, who is Dean of the Annenberg School of Communication

at the University of Pennsylvania, to investigate what went wrong

and to recommend a set of steps for future election coverage. On

January 4, the panel issued an exhaustive 87-page report, and we

made it available to you and every American citizen on our Web

site, CBS News.com. We have also entered its recommendations

into the record of these proceedings.

106

The recommendations are far reaching and thoughtful, and CBS

News intends to adopt all of them. Very briefly, we will strengthen

the checks and balances on the CBS News decision desk which is

the entity responsible for analyzing exit poll data and vote data on

election night; we will beef up our news-gathering resources on the

ground in key States with particularly close races and will toughen

the criteria for projecting winners in very close races. We will develop and consult multiple sources for vote tallies. We will explain

to the audience very clearly how exit polls work and exactly how

a particular projection is made. We will clarify our language and

our graphics to distinguish more clearly between projections and

final results. We will also work with our network colleagues to address problems with the Voter News Service; and, if necessary, we

will develop alternatives to VNS. Finally, we will not project a winner in a State until all the polls have closed there.

Now, I believe that these changes and similar ones that have

been announced by our competitors will go a very long way toward

ensuring the credibility that draws a vast national audience to election night coverage on television. Having said that, I think it is

equally important to point out that I don’t accept all of the criticisms that have been leveled at the networks.

The notion that the pattern of State by State calls reflected bias

against President Bush, for example, has been rejected by every

single outside expert who examined each of the networks, even

those experts, and you heard from them today, who are the most

highly critical of us. I was glad to hear you say again today, Mr.

Chairman, that the committee’s investigators found no evidence of

intentionally misleading or biased reporting.

This election also revived a decades-old debate about calling

races in States before all of the polls have closed there. Our report,

like the findings of the other networks, rejects the argument that

the first call in Florida, which occurred about 10 minutes before

the final 5 percent of the State polls closed in the Panhandle, had

any measurable effect on voters. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, given the widespread perception that network projections do

affect voter behavior, CBS News has decided that in future elections we will not project the winner in a State until all the polls

have closed there.

There is a simple way to resolve this issue once and for all. And

we have heard a lot about it today. One that CBS News has advocated since the 1960’s, and that is a uniform national poll closing.

We applaud the news that you, Mr. Chairman, along with Congressmen Dingell and Markey and Stearns and several other committee members are sponsoring such a bill.

Finally, I think it is important, and this is really important to

me, not to confuse news coverage of the election with the election

itself. It took the Nation, not the networks, the Nation 5 weeks to

pick a President. Let’s assume for a second that we had gotten

Florida right and never projected a winner there. The country

would still have undergone its 5-week marathon, and there would

still have been debate about the outcome and how it was reached.

We come here today voluntarily, out of our sense of duty to this

respected body and to the American people that all of us here

serve. I want to state for the record that I am very grateful to you,

107

Mr. Chairman, for your written assurances that the hearing is not

out to prove a point or make a political statement and that this

committee will, in all respects, continue to be mindful of our first

amendment rights and protections in this matter. The Constitution

does protect us against unwarranted interference from government;

but we, like you, are accountable to the most important constituency in America, the citizens of this great Nation. So please accept

that it is in that spirit that I am here to answer your questions

today. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Andrew Heyward follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW HEYWARD, PRESIDENT, CBS NEWS

Good morning, Chairman Tauzin, Congressman Dingell and members of the Committee. I am Andrew Heyward, President of CBS News. I appreciate this opportunity to provide my comments on the very important subject before us today: news

coverage of Election Night 2000.

The election of 2000 will long be remembered as a test of our democratic system— a test that the nation passed with distinction. Arguably, our democracy emerged

from the five-week ‘‘Election Night’’ even stronger than it was before. Whatever your

views about its outcome, the nation was able to resolve a complex and contentious

election peacefully, and we now have a new President of all the people.

I believe the network news divisions will also draw strength from this unique experience and emerge as even better public citizens than we were before November

7, 2000. That is because we have, since that night, worked hard to confront what

went wrong and to chart a series of reforms that we believe will ensure, within the

limits of what is possible, that our mistakes are not repeated.

CBS News and the other network news operations made serious mistakes that

long, confusing night—mistakes I deeply regret. Projecting Vice President Gore as

the winner in Florida...then retracting that projection...then projecting and retracting a similar call for then-Governor Bush was not only embarrassing to say the

least, but it was damaging to our most important asset—our hard-won credibility

with our viewers, listeners, and Internet users. These citizens have every right to

expect accurate information above all else. We would quickly lose our audience and

soon our entire business if people could not rely on the truth of what we say.

It is evident, in retrospect, that we should not have called Florida for either candidate. Our method of projecting winners—one that had produced only six bad calls

in more than 2000 races since the 1960’s—failed us this time, and in the very state

that held the key to the election. That’s why everyone at this table has acknowledged the magnitude of the mistakes, analyzed the problems we encountered, and

moved quickly to address them ‘‘not in response to outside pressure or criticism, but

at our own initiative. The American people who are our viewers and listeners deserve nothing less.

On November 14, CBS News appointed a distinguished three-person panel, including a well-known outside expert, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dean of the

Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, to investigate what went wrong and recommend a set of steps for future election coverage.

On January 4, the panel issued an exhaustive 87-page report, and we made it available to the Committee and to every American citizen on our cbsnews.com website.

It can be read in its entirety at http:///CBSNews.com/htdocs/c2k/pdf/REPFINAL.pdf.

The report consists of an internal CBS News review of what happened Election

Night, an analysis of the Election Night broadcast by Dr. Jamieson, and a historical

perspective by Dr. Kathleen Frankovic, CBS News Director of Surveys and a wellknown political scientist. The chairperson of the panel was Linda Mason, Vice President, Public Affairs, a respected 34-year veteran of CBS News.

The report analyzes the mistaken calls in great detail and makes recommendations for how CBS News should improve its coverage of elections in the future. The

recommendations are far-reaching and thoughtful, and CBS News intends to adopt

all of them. Here they are, taken in their entirety from the panel’s report:

RECOMMENDATIONS

Changing How CBS News Calls Races

• As an added precaution, assign a member of CBS News senior management to head the Decision Desk. The goal is to provide a larger and more authoritative context for each call. This person, who would report to the president of

108

CBS News on Election Night, would have significant training in the decision process, with extensive knowledge of the data screens and how they work. He or she

would monitor the editorial flow (in this case, the Florida breaking news) and integrate it with the Decision Desk’s activities. This senior manager would also have

to be able to withstand the competitive pressure if others made a call and he or

she argued that more facts were needed before CBS News also made the call. CBS

News has to be ready to be second or even last, and can make a virtue of its patience and determination to be accurate, even if it takes longer.

• Move the Decision Desk into the Election Night studio. This will promote

constant contact between the news gatherers and the analysts. The consultants who

work at the various correspondent desks on Election Night could also contribute to

this dialogue. If a story is breaking, as it was in Florida this year, there will be

constant interaction, instead of the Decision Desk functioning in a vacuum, as it did

this time in an office three floors from the studio.

• Assign a correspondent to the Decision Desk. He or she can dissect close

races in detail, with precise descriptions of what went into a call or why one has

not been made. For example, he or she could explain that one call was made using

only exit polls, another using exit polls and tabulated data, another not made at all

because the exit polls did not match historical patterns, and so on.

• Identify the closest races and toughen the criteria for making those

calls. CBS News should insist on a critical mass of both exit-poll and tabulated data

before making a call in those close races; similarly, a call should be withheld in

those states until the level of certainty meets an even higher standard than usual

for calling a race. Such precautions might have prevented the bad calls in Florida.

• Develop a new category of ‘‘leaning’’ to describe some races. These are

races in which one candidate has a solid lead but CBS News is not yet ready to

make a call. This category could also be displayed graphically and integrated into

CBS News’ overall projections for the night. We should be willing to trade the illusion of certainty for genuine credibility.

• Check multiple sources for vote tallies. Make certain that members of the

CBS News Decision Desk compare VNS numbers to those in the AP reports and on

the Web sites of the Secretaries of State and, if there is a discrepancy, find out why.

It would have rung an alarm if CBS News analysts had consulted those sources on

Election Night 2000.

• Strengthen our information gathering in close states. We must unilaterally strengthen our operation by placing local political experts in appropriate state

election locations to help us obtain actual vote numbers quickly and to assess the

situation on the ground in places where it appears that the race will be close. We

should conduct more pre-election telephone polls in closely contested states to deal

with the growing number of absentee voters, and to achieve a better grasp of unique

circumstances in each state. There will usually be no more than 10 or 12 states in

this category.

‘‘Fuller’’ Disclosure

• Tell the viewers how calls are made, as often as possible. We must explain regularly throughout the early hours of the broadcast how the exit poll is conducted and what it shows, so that the audience knows we are not consulting a crystal ball. The process should be less mysterious, more open: it will be informative

and interesting for the audience to understand more of how we come to our conclusions. An explanation of how the exit poll is conducted should also be posted on the

CBS News Web site.

• Label calls appropriately. We should use the words ‘‘projected’’ or ‘‘estimated’’ early and often, and make the word ‘‘estimate’’ much larger on the CBS

News graphics. We need to remind the audience repeatedly that these are just predictions until the votes are actually counted. We should stress this language, with

explanations, on the CBS News Web site.

• Tell viewers why calls are not made. We must clearly distinguish between

races that are too close to call and races for which there is simply not yet enough

information.

The Future of VNS

• Invest more in VNS to address its problems or form a new consortium

to build an alternative service. VNS, in a preliminary review, cites its own imperfections: problems with the sample, with the equipment, with the software and

with quality control. If the decision is to fix VNS, CBS News will have to spend

more to address these issues, as will the other VNS members. The alternative is

to develop a new service to perform the functions of VNS. This decision should be

109

made after members receive the final results of the review by the outside group that

is studying VNS. • If the decision is to fix VNS, CBS News should recommend reorganizing

the board. To date, the VNS board has been made up primarily of polling or election-unit personnel from each network. We suggest that the board be composed of

a vice president from each organization and that it focus on broad-based policy rather than on day-to-day management.

Poll Closing

• Change the policy for calling with multiple poll closings. We recommend

that CBS News not make a call in any state until all the polls have closed in that

state; this is a new policy. However, in states with multiple poll closings where less

than 5 percent of the voting-age population remains after the first poll closing, or

in states that report early results themselves, we recommend using the new ‘‘leaning’’ characterization if appropriate. Under this recommendation, for example, races

in Texas, Kansas and Michigan—states where the voting-age population remaining

after the first polls close is very small—could be described as ‘‘leaning’’ if one candidate has a solid lead. A Florida race could also be described as ‘‘leaning’’ under

this formula because the states itself releases early results, even while polls are still

open in the Panhandle. • Support a uniform poll-closing bill in Congress. As CBS News has done

since 1964, we continue to urge the adoption of a uniform poll-closing time. This

reform would completely eliminate the possibility of voters being influenced by reported results elsewhere in the country; all results would be reported at the same

time, as the polls close across the nation.

• Encourage turnout. During the broadcast, the anchor should repeatedly urge

people to vote, as Dan Rather did on Election Night 2000.

I believe that these changes, and similar ones announced by our competitors, will

go a long way towards ensuring the credibility that draws a vast national audience

to Election Night coverage on television. We have performed this important role in

the political life of our nation since the advent of broadcast journalism. Nothing is

more important to us than meeting that responsibility with accuracy and fairness.

On a personal note, I am very proud of the process by which CBS News has publicly exposed the flaws in its Election Night performance and procedures. I believe

we have met this challenge with a candor and thoroughness that few corporations

have ever displayed in acknowledging and addressing their own problems.

Having said that, I think it is equally important to point out that I do not accept

all the criticisms that have been leveled at our industry since the election.

The notion that the pattern of state-by-state calls reflected bias against President

Bush, for example, has been rejected by the outside experts who examined every

network, even those who were the most highly critical of us.

I can tell you from personal experience that the analysts and news executives who

interpret Election Night data are worrying about one thing above all others: getting

it right. Every projection is unique, based on a complex and ever-shifting set of data.

And as we have all seen, the networks’ calls are exposed for the world to see—and

the penalty for mistakes is severe. It is simply not credible that politics plays any

role whatsoever in the analysts’ recommendations or in what makes it onto the

screen. I was glad to hear Chairman Tauzin say last Thursday that the Committee’s

investigators ‘‘found no evidence of intentionally misleading or biased reporting.’’

This election also revived the decades-old debate about calling races in states before all the polls have closed there. Our report, like the findings of other networks,

rejects the argument that the first calls in Florida—which came just 10 minutes before the final 5% of state polls closed in the Panhandle—had any measurable effect

on voters.

However, as I mentioned earlier, given the widespread perception that network

projections do affect voter behavior, CBS News has decided that in future elections

we will not project a winner until all polls have closed in a given state.

In this regard, it is worth reminding the Committee that there is a simple way

to resolve this issue once and for all—one that CBS News has advocated since the

mid-1960’s. This is a uniform national poll closing. We applaud the news that you,

Mr. Chairman, Congressmen Dingell and Markey and several other Committee

members are sponsoring such a bill.

Finally, I think it’s important not to confuse news coverage of the election with

the election itself. This election was unique in the experience of every living American. It took the nation—not the networks, the nation—five weeks to pick a President. Let’s assume we had gotten Florida right and never projected a winner there:

the country would still have undergone its five-week marathon, and there would

still have been debate about the outcome and how it was reached.

110

Here is another excerpt from the CBS Election Night report, from the section entitled ‘‘Lessons Learned.’’

‘‘The election of 2000 revealed to the American people what had been a dirty

little secret known only to politicians: even when elections are conducted with

the best of intentions, they are approximations, prone to human error, mechanical error, confusion and disorganization... Across the country, not every vote

cast is counted. In fact, according to the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, for every 100 million voters, nearly two million ballots will not

be counted for various reasons...

Against this background, it is important to consider how many factors were beyond the control of the news organizations covering this election, factors that affected each organization’s ability to make some crucial calls correctly. There was

human error: election workers improperly entered votes into the computer; precinct

workers incorrectly copied or misread ballot tallies because of poor penmanship; voters made mistakes marking butterfly ballots; and ballots were lost. There was machine error as well: punch cards were not read; a memory disk malfunctioned in

Volusia County; and there were other mechanical problems.

VNS could not or did not correct for these factors. Hindsight is always 20/20, and

it is easy to observe in retrospect that VNS most certainly should have done so. Instead, it relied on, among other things, models and methods that had been very dependable in the past but that came up short in this extraordinary election. In the

Florida exit polls, people reported how they had voted, assuming that their votes

were being counted. Some may not have been. VNS also did not accurately factor

in the absentee balloting. The unique circumstances of the Florida election exposed

problems at VNS that must now be corrected.

But the ultimate responsibility for the calls we made lies with us at CBS News.

It was we at CBS News who analyzed the data from VNS and decided when to

make a call. And it is here where there are the greatest lessons to be learned. We

hope we have incorporated all of those lessons in our recommendations for future

election coverage.

CBS News will continue to strive for perfection, realizing that, as was made all

too clear by this long election, perfection in any human endeavor is difficult to

achieve and impossible to guarantee. What we can guarantee is this: that, just as

we have learned from our mistakes in the past, we will learn from the mistakes

made during this election and adopt new policies and procedures that will guard

against similar mistakes being made in the future; that we will continue to reach

for the truth in all we do, and report to the public without fear, favor or bias the

events as they occur, no matter how complex or difficult the story might be.’’

We come here today voluntarily, out of our sense of duty to this respected body,

and to the American people we all serve. I want to state for the record that I am

very grateful for Chairman Tauzin’s written assurances that this hearing is, ‘‘not

out to prove a point or to make a political statement’’—and that this Committee

‘‘will—in all respects—continue to be mindful’’ of [our] ‘‘1st Amendment rights and

protections in this matter.’’

I believe the network news divisions play a vital role in our democratic process

by informing citizens about the issues that shape their lives. In effect, we get ‘‘elected’’ every time someone turns on one of our programs or logs on to one of our

websites. The Constitution protects us against unwarranted interference from government, but we, like you, are accountable to the most important constituency in

America: the citizens of this great nation.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you very much. I deeply appreciate

that attitude. That is what this is indeed all about. As I was asked

this morning a little bit what this was about, I identified it as a

platform for all of us to come and tell the American public what

we are going to try to do to make it better and that is essentially

it. I thank you for that.

Our next witness will be Mr. Tom Johnson, Chairman and Chief

Executive Officer of CNN in Atlanta, Georgia.

Mr. Johnson, if you will help me through this again. You are

aware that the committee is holding an investigative hearing and

when doing so, it is the practice to take testimony under oath. Do

you have any objection to testifying under oath?

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not.

111

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair then advises you under our rules

and the rules of the committee you are entitled to be advised by

counsel.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am.

Chairman TAUZIN. In that case, would you raise your right hand,

sir?

Oh, you have your counsel?

Mr. JOHNSON. I do. Floyd Abrams.

Chairman TAUZIN. I didn’t hear that. Do you intend to testify,

counsel?

Mr. ABRAMS. No, I will not.

Chairman TAUZIN. Then will you please raise your hand, sir.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TAUZIN. Counsel, you are entitled to sit at the table

if you would like to.

Mr. ABRAMS. No, I am fine.

TESTIMONY OF TOM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CNN

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appear before you today to outline the decisions CNN has reached

about the changes we will make in future election night coverage.

At the outset, I would like to say that CNN is acutely aware of

our responsibilities to the American public and of the responsibility

of Congress to enact appropriate legislation relating to the electoral

process. At the same time, as you have heard earlier today, there

are sensitive first amendment issues raised by any hearing relating

to editorial decisions by journalists; and I trust the committee will,

as it has said, bear those in mind.

Looking back on campaign 2000 coverage, I am very proud of the

hundreds of CNN journalists who devoted their efforts to informing

the American public about the issues of this last election. However,

CNN did make major mistakes, both in its initial projection of Vice

President Gore as the winner in Florida and then prematurely projecting that then Governor George Bush had won in Florida. As a

result, I appointed a totally independent panel to advise us on

what went wrong, why it happened, and what should be done to

prevent a recurrence in the future. You heard from that outside

panel earlier today.

As a result of our full review and to ensure complete reliability

in the future, CNN has announced a number of decisions last week.

The first relates to CNN’s future connection with VNS. We will remain with VNS if and only if significant changes are made. The errors that plagued election night 2000 must never be repeated.

Among the action steps: a revision of VNS’s projection system and

statistical models. These then will be reviewed by outside experts.

Additional research into methods for better estimating the increasing number of absentee and early voters, as well as to better analyze the nonresponse rates and possible statistical bias which we

have discussed in the exit polls themselves.

Beyond the efforts to improve VNS, CNN has decided that it will

have a second source for the data used to make projections for the

close races. CNN will fund a back-up sample key precinct vote-reporting system in the States that are expected to have the most

112

competitive races. We will then cross-check the information we received from this second source against the VNS data, making any

projections based on the data more reliable. Also, CNN will insist

that the Associated Press tabulation system, which has been very

reliable, be better integrated into the VNS election night data collection system. CNN also will limit our reliance on exit polls. We

will only use exit polls survey data to project a winner when the

data indicate clearly that one of the candidates has a large margin

at closing time.

Twenty-six States were called by CNN using VNS exit poll data.

All of those were correct calls. Despite that, CNN will raise significantly criteria for future exit poll projections. If a race cannot be

called at poll closing, CNN will only project a winner in that State

using actual vote data from the statewide vote tabulations and

sample precincts.

One of the lessons learned from election night is that when a

race is extremely close, the reported vote might be incorrect. Therefore, even if it is reported and all of the outstanding ballots of the

State are counted, CNN will not project a winner if the balloting

shows there is a less than 1 percent margin between the two candidates. These new policies certainly will slow down our election

night projections. Had these standards been in place this past year,

we would have delayed at least 30 minutes in 10 States, and Florida never would have been called early in the evening for Vice

President Gore or in the early morning hours for Governor Bush.

As you have heard from others today, CNN also has decided they

will no longer project the winner in any State until all the polls are

closed within that State.

As a result of our review CNN will also change our language regarding projections. CNN anchors will avoid saying that a State is

too close to call if in fact we just don’t have enough data available

to call that State, and CNN’s anchors will describe more specifically in each State the basis for our projections, whether it’s exit

polls, sample precincts or the reported votes. With these and the

other proposed changes, I am confident the errors of the past will

not be repeated.

I do want to respond to one question that has been raised, and

I think it has been emphasized earlier today our reporting about

election night was not biased. CNN’s selection of which States to

project winners at particular times in the evening was not biased.

And on the matter of legislation, and I say this as much as a

former Californian as a person today living in Georgia, I strongly

urge the Congress to adopt a nationwide uniform poll closing act.

If such an act were adopted, CNN would not make any projections

until all the polls are closed nationwide.

To close, I assure this committee that CNN will go the last mile

to fix the problems which have been identified. As I have told our

staff, and I know that we all understand it, we would rather be

right than first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Tom Johnson follows:]

113

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, CNN NEWS GROUP

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Tom Johnson, Chairman and

CEO of the CNN News Group. I appear before you today to outline the decisions

CNN has reached about the changes it will make in its future election night coverage.

Let me start with our election night coverage. I want you to know that I am very

proud of the hundreds of CNN journalists who devoted all their efforts to informing

the American public about the issues in the last Presidential election, the electoral

contest itself, the events on election day, and the extraordinary 35-day period afterwards in which the Florida vote was at issue. All of our efforts were dedicated to

ensure that the American public was better informed than ever before. To a significant degree, I believe we did just that.

At the same time, however, CNN, as did the other networks, erred both in its initial projection of Vice President Gore as the winner in Florida and then in prematurely projecting that President George W. Bush had prevailed in Florida. As a

result, I appointed a totally independent panel of experts to advise us on what had

gone wrong at CNN, why it had happened, and what should be done to prevent

against a recurrence in future elections. Three widely respected scholars accepted

CNN’s request to work on this project: Jim Risser, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner

and former director of the Knight Fellowship program at Stanford University; Joan

Konner, former dean and current professor of the Columbia Graduate School of

Journalism; and Ben Wattenberg, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Last week, the panel completed its report and CNN released it publicly.

In addition to the panel’s review, CNN, along with the other networks, funded a

separate report by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) of Raleigh, N.C. on the operations of the Voter News Service (VNS), an organization created and jointly funded by ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and the AP. VNS provided, and all the networks

used, Election Day survey data for projections and analysis and also provided a nationwide vote tabulation reporting system. As has become clear, some of the data

VNS generated was erroneous and an examination of VNS’s role was required and

was initiated by the VNS board.

As a result of our review of events surrounding the erroneous Florida calls, CNN

has made a number of decisions about the future. The first relates to CNN’s future

connection with VNS itself. CNN has determined to remain with VNS if, and only

if, significant changes are made to ensure that the errors that plagued election night

coverage in 2000 do not recur. The steps necessary to accomplish this include, but

are not limited to:

• Implementation of the bulk of recommendations contained in the RTI report regarding VNS.

• Rewriting of VNS’s projection system and statistical models that will then be reviewed by outside experts.

• Additional research into methods for better estimating the increasing number of

absentee and early voters, as well as to better analyze non-response rates and

statistical bias in exit polls.

• Initiation of a major upgrade and modernization of VNS’s technical capabilities

and infrastructure as outlined in the Battelle Practice Report, commissioned by

VNS members in August 2000 and completed this month.

To accomplish these goals and to implement the bulk of the recommendations

made in the RTI Report, additional financial contributions will be required of VNS

members. CNN is prepared to pay its fair share. Further, if it remains a member

of VNS, CNN will urge the addition of one or more outside respected academics,

journalists or research professionals to the board to provide independent perspective

regarding VNS operations.

CNN will, as well, appoint its Executive Vice President for News Standards to

take an active role in its involvement with VNS. Let me reiterate, if VNS is not

reformed, we will pull out and will support a potential successor organization should

VNS fail to meet CNN’s requirements.

Beyond the efforts to improve VNS, CNN has decided that it should have a second

source for the data used to make projections in the closer races on election night.

Therefore, CNN will fund a sample key precinct vote-reporting system in the states

expected to have the closest races. This will ensure that our network can cross-check

the information it receives from its new second source against the VNS data, making any projections based on that data more reliable. In addition, CNN will insist

that the Associated Press tabulation system be better integrated into the VNS election night data collection system.

114

In addition, CNN has decided to limit its reliance on exit polls. CNN will only

use exit poll survey data to project a winner when the data indicate one of the candidates has a large margin at the time that the polls close in that state.

If the race is too close to call, CNN will then only project a winner in that state

using actual vote data from the statewide vote tabulations and key precincts.

If these standards had been in place on election night 2000, CNN’s projection of

a winner would have been delayed by at least 30 minutes in 10 states and Florida

would never have been called early in the evening for Vice President Gore. As for

calls made at poll closing in the 2000 election, 26 states were called by CNN, using

VNS exit poll data, when the polls closed in those states. All were correct calls, and

none was close. Despite that, CNN will raise significantly the criteria for these exit

poll projections above what was used on election night.

CNN also has decided not to project a winner in a state, even if it is reported

that all the outstanding ballots have been accounted for, if the balloting shows that

there is less than a 1% margin between the candidates. This would have prevented

the too-early call of Florida for President Bush.

CNN also has decided that it will no longer project the winner in any state until

all the polls are closed within that state.

We believe it is important that our viewers know more about how we gather information and how we deal with the information we have gathered. Accordingly, CNN

will draw back the curtain for our viewers on the exit poll and projection process.

In the days leading up to the election, CNN will produce a number of reports on

its election night reporting. We will provide other ‘‘behind the scenes’’ reporting to

show viewers how the projection process works. In addition, on Election Day, CNN

will assign a number of correspondents to report on how the key precinct and exit

poll workers do their jobs.

In addition, CNN will assign its own reporters to the control room, the CNN Decision Desk, and to VNS (or its successor) during the broadcast to provide ‘‘behind

the scenes’’ reporting that will let viewers see how the projection process works.

As a result of our review of our coverage on election night, we have decided that

CNN will change its language and graphics on election night regarding projections.

Until all the votes have been counted in each state, CNN will no longer call anyone

the winner of a state. No longer will CNN anchors say, ‘‘CNN calls Al Gore the winner in Michigan,’’ but will instead try to explain better what is the basis of the projection. For example, anchors will say, ‘‘CNN projects that, based primarily on exit

poll estimates, Al Gore will win Michigan,’’ or will say, ‘‘Based on the results of voting from key precincts and an evaluation of the returns so far from around the

state, CNN estimates George Bush will win the state of Virginia.’’ In addition, CNN will be careful with its language regarding the reasons for why

a call is not being made. It will instruct its anchors to be specific. ‘‘It’s too close

to call in Georgia,’’ has a different meaning from ‘‘We don’t have enough information

yet in Georgia to make a call there.’’ The former means it is a close race. The latter

simply means we need more information to make any type of characterization.

CNN’s onscreen graphics will reflect better what it knows and precisely what it

means to say. On election night, CNN’s full-screen graphics included the words

‘‘CNN Estimate,’’ but the words were not as prominent as they should have been.

CNN’s new policy will position the words ‘‘CNN Estimate’’ as the title on the fullscreen graphic.

In very close races, CNN’s reporting will inform viewers at the earliest appropriate time regarding a state’s mandatory recount provisions.

With these changes in effect, we believe that we can address the future confident

that the errors of the past will not recur. We will do all in our power to ensure that

they do not.

I want to add a further observation of my own about the past and the future. We

are, as I have said, proud of the CNN journalists who worked so hard on election

night to inform our public. And I want to respond to one question that has been

raised about our coverage in the clearest, most unambiguous way. CNN’s reporting

about election night 2000 was not biased. CNN’s journalists were not biased, CNN’s

coverage was not biased, CNN’s selection of which states to project winners, at particular times in the evening, was not biased. I strongly believe that the same is true,

as well, of VNS.

Finally, I do want to address the matter of legislation. I strongly urge the Congress to adopt a nationwide Uniform Poll Closing Act. If such an act were adopted,

CNN would not make any projections until all the polls were closed nationwide, just

as it will not make any projections in any state until all the votes in that state are

cast. To the extent that the committee is concerned that the announcement of who

the likely, or even certain, winner is in one state could affect voting patterns in another, the adoption of legislation providing for a single time at which all voting

115

ceases in the country would assure that even the potential of any such impact was

avoided.

Because the 2000 election was so close, it exposed problems with the mechanics

of voting, that have been there for some time, but were not noticed. In the same

way, it exposed problems with the operation of VNS. I say this not as an excuse,

but to put the situation in perspective. As with the steps that are being taken with

election reform, we are going to take every measure to make sure our own problems

are corrected.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you very much, sir. Our next panelist

will be Roger Ailes, Chairman and Chief Executive Office of Fox

News, New York, New York. Mr. Ailes, if you will help me through

this process. Mr. Ailes, you are aware that our practice is to take

testimony under oath when we are doing an investigative hearing.

Do you have any objection to testifying under oath?

Mr. AILES. It wouldn’t make any difference. I plan to tell the

truth either way.

Chairman TAUZIN. Very good. The Chair then advises you that

under the rules of the House and rules of the committee you’re entitled to be advised by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by

counsel here?

Mr. AILES. My counsel is here, Diane Brandy, in case I need

some documents or whatever. She does not plan to testify.

Chairman TAUZIN. In that case will you please raise your right

hand?

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TAUZIN. You are now under oath. You may give your

testimony.

TESTIMONY OF ROGER AILES, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FOX NEWS

Mr. AILES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dingell, who I guess

is not here, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity

to tell what happened on election night 2000. This was Fox News’

first cycle with VNS, 1998 and 2000, and our first Presidential election. In a sense both the networks and Congress have similar

tasks. We’ve had to come up with solutions for our reporting on

election night and Congress is considering election reform and campaign finance reform. These are very complicated issues and take

years to sort out, but in just a few weeks we’ve come up with what

we collectively believe are solutions to the problems that we had

on election night 2000.

Like you, I am concerned about the mistakes we made. Our viewers depend on us for reliable and accurate information, especially

during important events like a Presidential election. If we lose

their confidence we have lost everything. For this reason at my direction Fox News performed an in-depth review of events that transpired on election night. As everyone knows, Voter News Service,

a consortium with a good track record, gave out bad numbers that

night. In the closest race in history the wheels apparently came off

a rattle trap computer system which we relied on and paid millions

for.

As Fox relied on those numbers, we gave our audience bad information. Our lengthy and critical self-examination shows that we let

our viewers down. I apologize for making those bad projections that

night. It will not happen again. We were the first network to anVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
116

nounce that we will never call a State again until all the polls are

closed in that State. We are working on internal safeguards, including placing more of our own personnel in key precincts, in

order to gather information and report results. If we stay with

VNS, we will spend more money to help fix the computer models

and help report the elections.

Fox News favors Mr. Markey, Mr. Dingell, Chairman Tauzin’s

legislation for universal closing times across the Nation.

Now I would like to say a few words about this hearing. From

the beginning Fox News cooperated fully with this committee to

find solutions. While I honor and respect this committee’s role in

searching for legislative solutions, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disappointed that this is being handled as an investigative and not a

legislative, fact finding matter. I am further disappointed that this

committee views its role as adversarial, requiring us to take an

oath as if we have something to hide. We do not. With or without

a swearing in photo op, we will hide nothing. I know all of these

gentlemen at this table personally. I have worked with some. We

are all competitors and in some cases we don’t agree on issues and

in other cases we are not even that fond of each other. However,

we all understand the importance of our respective journalistic enterprises and journalistic integrity. And they as well as I will tell

the truth whether we are under oath or not. Everything our organizations did on election night was done under the protection of the

first amendment, and that may become more relevant as these discussions and questions continue.

A final personal note: There seems to be a bipartisan agreement

that we should slow down our competitive spirit and thereby slow

down the election, and I can almost assure you that if you put us

through another day like this the next results may not be known

for 3 weeks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Roger Ailes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER AILES, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, FOX NEWS NETWORK

Let me begin by stating that Fox News, along with all the other television networks, made errors on election night which cannot be repeated, the biggest of which

occurred in Florida.

Fox News acknowledges here that it failed the American public on Election Night

and takes full responsibility for this failure.

These errors have led to much self-examination of the processes we used on election night, how the Voter News Service operated on election night, and our membership in the Voter News Service.

Through our self-examination and investigation we have determined that there

was no intentional political favoritism in play on election night on the part of Fox

News.

In hindsight we made a significant error in relying on VNS data alone, although

that was the only data available. Obviously, it would have been better to have at

least one other source of data, but up until now economic considerations have made

this unfeasible. We look at VNS in much the same way the networks combine resources for pool cameras, the Associated Press, etc.

As you may know, the Fox News Channel launched on October 7, 1996. From the

moment we launched we intended to compete with the big established television

news networks. In order to cover elections in a competitive manner, we believed we

would have to join VNS. But it was not an easy decision for us. First and foremost,

membership in VNS was (and is) very expensive, especially for what was, at the

time, a fledgling television network. But, after many internal discussions of both

editorial and financial natures, we decided to join. I understood VNS had a good,

solid record of calling races until the 2000 elections. For example, 99% of the calls

117

which VNS made over the last two election cycles have been accurate; 100% of VNS’ calls in 1998 were accurate.

Now, however, we feel the purpose, intent, processes and models of VNS must be

carefully examined in a formal manner and we are willing to spend more money

as a VNS Member to make this examination happen.

Let me assure you that Fox News operates in the interest of the public and attempts at all times to conduct itself with that fact in mind.

Since election night, the issue of voter suppression has been written about and

discussed.

Would it have made any difference in voter turnout if the television networks

waited until all polls in the state of Florida, and in every other state for that matter, had closed before declaring a winner. When Fox News called Florida for Al Gore

at 7:52 pm, there were eight minutes remaining for citizens in the Florida panhandle to vote.

Well, I don’t know the answer to that question, but to remove all doubt it is a

simple enough remedy for a television network to wait until all polls in a given state

have closed before declaring a winner in that state.

Shortly after election night, Fox News became the first network to announce that

going forward it would not call a winner in a given state until all polls in that state

were closed.

I would now like to discuss briefly Fox News’ relationship with VNS and our Decision Desk Team.

John Ellis headed our Decision Desk team. He was joined by John Gorman, Arnon

Mishkin and Cynthia Talkov. All four members of the Decision Desk had to agree

on a call before it was recommended to John Moody, our Vice President of News

Editorial. Mr. Moody then made the final decision regarding whether or not to make

a call on the air on election night. The Decision Desk team would unanimously recommend a call and Mr. Moody would either accept it, in which case it got to air,

or he would question it in which case the Decision Desk team would walk him

through the numbers until he was comfortable making the call on the air. Mr.

Moody was also responsible for the retractions we made on the air.

I would like to say a few words about John Ellis because I am sure you are all

familiar with him and his family connections. Mr. Ellis is the first cousin of President George W. Bush and Governor Jeb Bush. We at Fox News do not discriminate

against people because of their family connections. I am more than happy to give

you examples of offspring of famous politicians who are employed at Fox News.

As for Mr. Ellis, he has almost 23 years of experience in calling elections. I won’t

go through his entire resume with you, but I will highlight the fact that he worked

in NBC’s election unit for over 10 years, including when George Herbert Walker

Bush ran for President in 1988. I have personally known Mr. Ellis for almost 20

years. He is a consummate professional. Much ado has been made about a column

Mr. Ellis wrote for The Boston Globe in July 1999 where he stated in effect that

his loyalty to then Governor George W Bush would prevent him from writing further columns about politics.

I am aware that Mr. Ellis was speaking to then Governor George W Bush and

Jeb Bush on election night. Obviously, through his family connections, Mr. Ellis has

very good sources. I do not see this as a fault or shortcoming of Mr. Ellis. Quite

the contrary, I see this as a good journalist talking to his very high level sources

on election night. Our investigation of election night 2000 found not one shred of

evidence that Mr. Ellis revealed information to either or both of the Bush brothers

which he should not have, or that he acted improperly or broke any rules or policies

of either Fox News or VNS. By the way, Mr. Gorman and Mr. Mishkin were speaking to high level Democratic sources throughout the evening.

To be clear, there was no information which John Ellis could have given to anyone

nor was there any unilateral decision which Mr. Ellis could have made which would

have affected the outcome of the election.

I understand that you may ask me specific questions about the decision screens

which were used that night and about other data. I depended entirely on our Decision Desk. I trusted them (and still trust them) to do a professional job and I believe

they did the best job that night they possibly could have.

I elected not to study these decision screens and other data solely in preparation

for this hearing since I have never looked at them before in my life. So any questions you ask me about data will be a blind alley.

Conclusion:

We must all question what purpose early calls serve, apart from bragging rights.

We must especially question the purpose of early calls since we all rely on one

source for our information.

118

You know I have toyed with the idea of not covering the next election until the

day after when all the votes have been tallied and the winners are certain beyond

all doubt. I have even thrown this idea out to some members of my senior staff.

They looked at me skeptically, as if they weren’t sure whether or not I was kidding.

I am, after all, the head of a news organization and this idea seems completely contrary to all I should be about.

But in my heart I do believe that democracy was harmed by my network and others on November 7, 2000. I do believe that the great profession of journalism took

many steps backward.

Here is what Fox News recommends going forward.

• No announcing of winners in any state until all polls in that state have closed.

• Fox News favors uniform poll opening and closing times across the entire country,

perhaps opening at 11 am Eastern time and closing at 11 pm Eastern time (i.e.

opening at 8 am Pacific time and closing at 8 pm Pacific time). Perhaps voting

takes place on a Saturday or perhaps a new federal holiday is declared for voting.

• Fox News intends to produce several news packages around the time of the next

elections to explain various elements of the election process, including how the

Electoral College was established, what its purpose is, explaining how ‘‘projections’’ are made, explaining any built-in biases in the systems that are used to

interpret data and call elections.

• Going forward, Fox News will inform its viewers of the margin of error in each

call it makes, however small.

• Fox News is considering more internal safeguards for the next election including

placing more of its own personnel in key precincts in key states to gather information and report on results.

• Fox News recognizes that having all networks relying on one source of data, VNS,

is problematic.

• Accordingly, the purpose and processes of VNS must be carefully reexamined in

a formal manner. The models must be rebuilt. The systems must be modernized. Fox News is willing to spend more money as a Member of VNS to go

through this reexamination process to ensure that we get it right the next time.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Ailes. I would like to report

to the committee that we held quite a number of investigative

hearings during the last session of Congress. We had 128 government and 170 nongovernment witness, all of whom were traditionally placed under oath. It has no other meaning other than the fact

that investigative hearings are taken under oath.

Our final witness on this panel is Mr. Andrew Lack, President

of NBC News, New York, New York. Mr. Lack, if you will kindly

go through the procedure with me.

You are aware the committee is holding the investigative hearing

and when in doing so the practice is we take testimony under oath.

Do you have an objection to testifying under oath?

Mr. LACK. No, sir.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair advises you that under the rules of

the House and the rules of the committee you are entitled to be advised by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel during

your testimony today?

Mr. LACK. No, sir.

Chairman TAUZIN. Then if you will kindly raise your hand, sir.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TAUZIN. You are properly sworn and you may give

your testimony, please, sir.

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW LACK, PRESIDENT, NBC NEWS

Mr. LACK. Mr. Chairman and members of committee, thank you.

I would expect that you would like to get to some questions and

answers pretty quickly, so I’m not going to use all of the time that’s

119

allotted to me for my initial remarks. You already have my prepared statements and you know that that summarizes the findings

of our election night broadcast and details the steps that we are

taking and the steps that we have taken to avoid the errors that

occurred that night. Make no mistake about it, we are embarrassed

by those errors, and you have heard chapter and verse today from

some of my distinguished competitors. I join them in ensuring that

we are absolutely intent on avoiding them and making sure they

don’t happen again.

But I would, if I may, like to spend just a few moments to take

a different cut at this and call your attention to something that is

far more embarrassing to me and more important to me as a reporter and as the President of NBC News. It is something which

was exposed to the country in the days and weeks following November 7, and it’s something that I worry may get just a little bit

lost in the context of these hearings. Where was our reporting before November 7 about the potential impact of ineffective voting

machines or confusing ballots or inadequately staffed polling sites?

What was the potential impact of a system that might in fact be

protecting felons who vote? We knew this was going to be a close

election, and I just don’t understand how it quite turned out that

we didn’t know much about automatic recount standards which

are, as you know, somewhat arbitrary and incredibly arcane, at

least for me.

We know now that if you are registered to vote it doesn’t always

mean you will be permitted to. We know if you’re in the military

and you mail in an absentee ballot it doesn’t necessarily mean it

will be counted. We know if you’re poor in this country it means

it will likely be that you will have a little bit more difficulty voting

than if you are rich. It occurs to me that a good question for us

would be for the price of a new Federal highway could we have gotten this whole system fixed?

Millions of votes are thrown out in election after election in this

country. Now that is a story. Now there’s a screw-up. We didn’t do

nearly enough digging, it seems to me, into those facts. And if we’d

asked some of these questions before the election and had some answers, we might have been in a whole lot better shape on election

night than we were. We booted it in more ways than one.

So I just ask respectfully of this committee that as this hearing

winds down, that you extend your focus beyond just the problems

that the networks experience on election night and look at the

problems that the voters experience on Election Day. As a journalist I wish I had.

And I yield, Mr. Chairman, the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Andrew Lack follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW LACK, PRESIDENT, NBC NEWS

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.

I know that many of you have expressed concern about the way NBC and the

other networks reported the presidential election results on the evening of November 7th. Let me assure you that no one is more concerned about what happened on

election night than we are at NBC News. That is why we have moved aggressively

to determine what went wrong and to begin to put in place the checks and balances

needed to ensure that our future election night reporting is in keeping with our

proud tradition.

120

On election night, NBC News had to take back a call made in an important race.

And we had to do it not once, but twice. We reported at 7:49 p.m. Eastern time that

Al Gore would win the state of Florida, and then had to withdraw that call at 10:16.

Next, we reported, at 2:17 in the morning, that the state of Florida and the Presidency would go to George W. Bush—a call we had to withdraw at 4:00 a.m. because

the vote count, in fact, was still very much in dispute. At that point, as Tom Brokaw

said, we didn’t just have egg on our face, we had omelet all over our suits.

The next morning, we began a top-to-bottom review of NBC’s own election night

procedures and insisted on an independent assessment of Voter News Service as

well. In the process, we have learned a lot about how we cover elections, about the

quality of the information that is supplied to us on election night, and about some

of the steps that we need to take to improve our election coverage.

I’d like to outline some of those conclusions for the Committee, but there are two

important issues that I’d like to address first: one, the charge that political or partisan considerations are a factor in our election reporting, and two, the allegation

that our election projections cause voters to stay home from the polls.

I have heard the allegation of political bias, and as I understand it, the charge

is that our projections for certain states were delayed—that some of the so-called

‘‘Gore states’’ were called more quickly than some of the ‘‘Bush states’’—that, somehow, we favored the Democratic candidate.

Let me respond by stating, unequivocally, that I am absolutely certain that political bias played no role in NBC’s election night reporting. We have one mission

when it comes to reporting results on election night: to do so as accurately and as

quickly as possible. We believe our election night viewers want to know who is winning and who will win that night, and they want to know as soon as we have the

ability to tell them. We aim to provide that information—with no agenda other than

timely and responsible reporting. We have reviewed each of the projections we made

on election night; we have confirmed that each projection was made just as soon as

our highly experienced election experts determined, in good faith and based on the

data in front of them, that a call was appropriate.

We are mindful, of course, of the concern that projecting election results while

polls are still open in some places may discourage some voters from voting. We have

decided that, for states in which polls close at different times (such as Florida), we

will no longer project until after the last scheduled poll closing time in that state.

We think this change will help avoid confusion among potential voters about what

time the polls in a state actually close.

As for the charge that voters in the western time zones stay home on election day

because of televised coverage of results in the east: the Committee no doubt is

aware that no reliable study has ever concluded that voters are actually so affected

by our broadcasts. We have looked closely at this issue, however, and we continue

to keep an eye on all of the research and data available. And, although, as a news

organization, we tend not to take positions on legislative policy initiatives, we do

support, as we have stated in the past, a national uniform poll-closing time.

It’s worth pointing out as well that, during our election-night broadcasts, our anchors frequently remind our viewers that polls may still be open in their communities and that they may still have the opportunity to vote. On November 7th, Tom

Brokaw made statements to this effect a number of times during the broadcast.

Of course, we did make mistakes on election night. Our review of NBC’s performance that night is ongoing, but we have already learned and concluded that a number of fixes have to be put into place. I make these observations having accepted

the recommendations of a review team that included two NBC executives and the

dean of the Graduate School of Journalism of Columbia University:

* VNS has to be retooled or replaced. We now have the benefit of an extensive report by Research Triangle Institute, an independent non-profit firm, and RTI

has confirmed what we immediately suspected: that the data our experts relied

upon on election night was flawed in a number of ways. We now know that,

while the fundamentals of the VNS methodologies are sound, VNS performance

suffered when it came to implementation and quality control in a contest as

close as the Florida presidential race. In addition, the VNS computer system,

a critical part of the process, appears not to have been up to the complexity of

the job.

As for whether we should continue to use exit polls and early vote returns

from key precincts to project election results, we continue to believe that these

can be valuable sources of information for our viewers. It is obvious, however,

that polling methods need to be further adapted to address recent trends and

changes in voting patterns, including the increase in absentee voting. For instance, we may need to increase election day exit polling and pre-election teleVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
121

phone polling for races expected to be close. We have stated already that we

are prepared to increase our budget to make such improvements.

* We also need to make certain that we use supplementary sources of data as a

way to verify the accuracy of the information we get. We learned from election

night 2000 that even the tabulated vote as reported by election officials can be

inaccurate. We are hopeful that, by the time of the next elections, official data

from states and counties will be more accurate as well as more easily and quickly available, on the Internet or through direct computer feeds.

* And, perhaps most important, we need to better explain to our viewers the type

of data that we have, where it comes from and what it means. We must differentiate for our audience the projections that we make based on exit polling

and those that we make based on actual tabulated votes, and we need to define

our terms, like ‘‘projection’’ and ‘‘too close to call’’. Our nomenclature and our

graphics must be clear, understandable and precise.

Finally, I’d like to address the ultimate issue of whether we should stop making

election night projections at all. We think not. Projections answer the questions our

viewers want to know: how have people voted, and who will win a given race. And,

of course, holding back this information would hardly stop the flow of unreliable information coming from the Internet and elsewhere, raising the potential for far

greater confusion.

In summary, we at NBC News have already learned a great deal about what went

wrong on election night and what we need to do in the future to ensure that our

viewers have the most accurate, reliable and understandable election night information.

It is no consolation to us that the closeness of the election revealed far more serious problems in the American election system than the ones we experienced, that

many citizens had trouble voting or having their votes count. It will be up to the

members of Congress and other elected officials to spend whatever time and effort

are required to fix those problems. In the meantime, we are committed to fixing our

own.

Chairman TAUZIN. You do that very well. The Chair recognizes

himself and members in order. Let me first again thank you all for

voluntarily appearing and for participating under the rules that

are set for these types of hearing. And second, I can assure you

that as we go through this process I’ve asked all the members on

our side and I know that Mr. Dingell has similarly requested all

members to respect the boundaries that we’ve discussed here today.

Let me first ask you a bit about your thoughts on exit polling

and the value of exit polling in this process. The testimony we just

heard and a lot of our own research indicates that exit polling has

not gotten much better and it may have gotten worse over the

years in being a good determinator in which to make a projection,

that, as you heard witnesses say, that the number of nonresponses

drives up the margins of error, and we’ve seen some statistics indicating as much as 16 percent errors in those election projections

because of that and other problems that you identified, Mr.

Savaglio.

Do you disagree that exit polling is getting worse not better?

Anyone. Anyone thinks it’s getting better?

Mr. LACK. Well, I don’t know that I know the scientific answer

to that from a statistician’s point of view, but my sense is that in

fact it is getting better. From our conversations at our decision

desk and with the people that we speak to at VNS, one of the problems that occurred on election night is they didn’t have enough exit

polls arguably to make some of the projections or to use it as one

of the tools that they were using as part of the projection process.

Chairman TAUZIN. Does anyone else think—Mr. Ailes, do you

think it’s getting better?

Mr. AILES. I think—was there some question of bias toward the

Democrats in the exit polls? Because that’s a question that I heard

122

earlier today. There seemed to be some statistical bias in that direction.

Chairman TAUZIN. No, I’m just asking do you think it’s a better

reliable indicator of where voters had voted than it was 5 or 10

years ago.

Mr. AILES. It is very hard to tell. Some pollsters will tell you

they’re getting more accurate. Most pollsters will tell you even in

polling, let alone exit polls, that fewer and fewer people are willing

to offer information about themselves personally and privately. But

I don’t know the empirical data. I do know that when Republicans

come out of polls and you ask them a question they tend to think

it’s none of your business and Democrats want to share their feelings. So you may get some bias there that is inadvertent, just because it’s a cultural thing and unless you send the Republicans to

sensitivity training you’re not going to get them to do that.

Chairman TAUZIN. Mr. Ailes, that was actually one of the conclusions of the analysis of VNS that was made, that indeed it may be

a cultural difference between members of different parties.

Mr. Westin.

Mr. WESTIN. Yes, our statisticians and our analysts have taken

a look at this and you go back over the last three elections, including the 2000 election, and you look at the overall statistical skew

of the exit polls nationwide, you will find that whereas in 1992 it

was roughly 5 percent, in 1996 it was just under 2.5 percent. I

think it was 2.3 and in 2000 it was 1.4 percent average overall. So

in terms of statistical skew. Now, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the

difficulty with statistical skew, while it is true on average over

time it tends to overpredict Democrat candidates more than Republican, in any given race it can favor a Republican or a Democrat.

And even in 2000, if you go back and look at the elections, there

were some larger States and key States where there was a statistical skew in favor of then Governor George W. Bush. For example,

Pennsylvania was one we delayed 80 minutes, and I believe that

was in large part because in fact our exit polling was overpredicting George W. Bush.

Chairman TAUZIN. Yes, it did go both ways.

Mr. WESTIN. It did go both ways.

Chairman TAUZIN. Let me ask you, do you as a group believe

that the original opinion of the networks, you know, we’ve got the

opinions going back to 1980, we were pretty hard on exit polls.

Walter Cronkite was tough on them. Robert Whistler, the Executive VP of CNN back then, said this is information of their own

manufacture and posed a significant risk that the actions in producing these polls and reporting on them might influence the electoral process themselves. How do you answer the criticism that

they really are produced by the news networks themselves? They

are literally not news you find but news you create.

Mr. WESTIN. Right, two or three points. First of all, at ABC

News, and I know this is true of my colleagues, we would not use

exit polls if we didn’t think it increased the accuracy of our reporting. It doesn’t mean they’re always accurate in and of themselves,

but if that additional input into our consideration doesn’t increase

the accuracy we wouldn’t be using them as a practical matter.

That’s why we use them. And I think if we took exit polling out

123

of it, our reporting would tend to be less accurate than it is now.

But to your specific question, there is an awful lot of reporting that

ABC News does and that all of my colleagues do on any given day

in this country that has to do with what is thought to be likely to

happen, whether it’s conflict in the Middle East or what Alan

Greenspan is likely to do or even what Congress is thought to be

doing. We would be doing something bad for this country if we said

from now on news organizations don’t report anything until after

it’s over and surprise everyone.

Chairman TAUZIN. Let me understand the agreements that I

think most of you are trying to make with the American public

today in terms of using those polls. Most of you speak about not

using the exit poll until all the polls have closed in a given State.

By that do you mean the hours that polls have closed or when the

voters in line finish voting. Anyone?

Mr. BOCCARDI. I think what we are saying here today is that the

hour when the polls close would be the problem.

Chairman TAUZIN. I think that’s what you all meant, as I read

your statements.

Mr. BOCCARDI. The thing that you are raising would be almost

impossible.

Chairman TAUZIN. I don’t know how you would administer it,

and it is one you could set a time, you could say 15 minutes after,

20 minutes after. But do you understand there is still a lot of concern that there are a lot of people standing in line even at the hour

the poll closes. In fact, we had testimony that there were 2 hours

of voting in some places going on even after the polls close. So even

an agreement that says we won’t report an exit poll until the hour

the poll closes may leave a lot to be desired, although it goes a long

way. I’ll give you that.

Mr. BOCCARDI. If they’re on line with their radios listening

for——

Chairman TAUZIN. Or their cell phones. Gosh, we have all kinds

of communications today. But understand that has been raised to

us as one of the concerns regarding how we resolve this even if we

go to a uniform poll closing time.

I wanted to do one last thing with the very last minute I’ve got.

On the VNS screens, when you post the information to the networks on those screens, we have to tabulate the screen tabulations

for 2:10 in the morning. The screen that was presented to all the

networks when the networks made the call that the election was

over, George Bush won, those screens indicate there were only, according to VNS estimates, only 179,000 voters left in Florida to

vote. Was that a correct number, Mr. Savaglio?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. No, that was a pretty substantial underestimation.

Chairman TAUZIN. About two to one. They had almost twice the

number left to go. If you could take the mike.

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Thank you. That was—— Chairman TAUZIN. Again, so we can make sure we get the understanding correctly. The screen that presented the information on

Florida, the VNS screen, indicated that you had 96 percent of the

vote in, 3 percent was out. 179,000 votes was your estimate of votes

out. That proved to be fairly inaccurate, right?

124

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Well, it was inaccurate, correct. It was a considerable amount, 359,000 votes.

Chairman TAUZIN. Almost twice as much were really out. The

screen also says that for Al Gore to have a chance to carry Florida

at that moment on that screen that he needed to get 63 percent

of vote.

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Right.

Chairman TAUZIN. Was that information forwarded to all of the

networks at that hour of the night?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Well, that was on their screens and I appreciate

that you’ve asked me the one question that you don’t have to be

a statistician to answer because I’m not. The outstanding vote calculation is a very simple, call it crude if you want, calculation. It

simply states the number of precincts that have reported out of the

total number that are to report. It takes and divides that and assumes all precincts are the same size.

Chairman TAUZIN. But they’re not.

Mr. SAVAGLIO. But they’re not. And so it’s simply a ratio. If 50

percent of the precincts are in and there’s 1,000 votes, it assumes

the next 50 percent are going to be another 1,000 votes. And the

reason the calculation is put in that way is to give the information

that’s available. It’s not possible to—in most cases to get the particular precincts or at least it’s not possible in a reporting fashion

to put into our system the specific precincts and their size and the

number of votes from each one as to come up with a more specific

number.

Chairman TAUZIN. But the bottom line is you gave the networks

that night on the VNS screen some relatively inaccurate information, right?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Yeah, there’s no question about that.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There has

been criticism, and I mentioned it earlier in my opening statement,

that John Ellis, who was President Bush’s cousin and who had

talked with Mr. Bush, Governor Bush, now President Bush,

throughout the election night was responsible for Fox’s decision to

be the first network to declare George Bush the winner of Florida

and the presidency.

Mr. Lack, I’d like to know if you would walk me through the

process at NBC on election night. Who at NBC had the responsibilities assigned to John Ellis at Fox?

Mr. LACK. A gentleman, Dr. Sheldon Gliser, who is director of

our election desk.

Mr. WAXMAN. There is an allegation making the rounds that

Jack Welch actually intervened in NBC’s decision to call the election for George Bush. I don’t know if you’ve heard that rumor before. I would like to lay it out there and have you comment on it.

Mr. LACK. I have heard the rumor and it’s untrue.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I would hope the allegation is untrue. If it

were, it would be absolutely inappropriate. But I’ve been told that

Mr. Welch’s actions were observed by others and in fact were even

captured on tape, filmed by NBC’s advertising and promotions department. It’s difficult for me to believe it’s true, but it seems there

is a simple way to either verify or debunk this allegation. I would

125

like to have you, if you would assure us that we would get that

tape and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you if you would to

make sure that we have any subpoena that might be necessary so

that if there is such a tape that we have it available to us.

Chairman TAUZIN. Pursuant to our rules, we will take that under

advisement.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Lack.

Mr. LACK. You’re certainly welcome to the tape. I know that advertising and promotion was around there. I don’t know if there is

a tape for you to look at. I was aware that Mr. Welch was there.

I observed him. He was in the building to attend a political party,

network party, and he was invited down to observe on a very historic night and a very exciting election night how we were doing

and what we were doing, and that’s precisely the manner in which

he was there. I think it’s unfortunate that some rumors would get

started that because he observed our election night process at that

point that that would somehow like in a Rashoman-like tale turn

out to be that he intervened in the election process, which is untrue and rather foolish, but that’s rumor.

Mr. WAXMAN. And you yourself were there at the time?

Mr. LACK. Yes, I saw him. I can state categorically that it’s just

a dopey rumor, truly dopey.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. Very good. Mr. Stearns I believe is next. He’s

not here. Mr. Burr.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And since I was not here

when this panel was seated let me take this opportunity to welcome all of you. I am not sure if the chairman asked but I would

like to get a response from each of you as to whether your representative medias plan to use exit polling in the future.

Mr. LACK. I’m sorry, could you ask that again?

Mr. BURR. If in fact your company plans to use exit polling in

the future.

Mr. LACK. We do.

Mr. BURR. You do.

Mr. AILES. We will also do it. It’s under review what we will tell

the audience about exit polling. We believe there was not enough

disclosure and definition to some of the terms used, light projection

and exit polling and so on, and so the answer is we will use the

information as long as we believe it is not misleading to the audience in some way.

Mr. JOHNSON. CNN will use exits polls provided we are convinced of the reliability of the exit poll process, the exit poll methodology.

Mr. BURR. Could I stop you there and just ask you what would

it take to convince you of the accuracy of the exit polling given that

the person who is being polled has the ability to tell you the truth

or an untruth?

Mr. JOHNSON. We would need to determine statistically, if possible, to what extent we were getting misrepresentation. I do not

believe there is a good answer to an outright lie.

Mr. BURR. There is certainly not a perfect answer, but you raised

exactly the point I wanted to get at, that at this point in this process the statistical accuracy was important. I would like for the rest

126

to answer the question and then I would like to go back to the importance of statistical accuracy.

Mr. HEYWARD. Yes, Congressman, we intend to use them as well

judiciously in a larger context. I think it’s important to remember

that exit polls are just one of many tools even in making a projection. Every single projection that was made solely of the basis of

exit polls was correct. I think there’s a danger of demonizing them

a little bit. But having said that, they have to be improved. I think

that the statistical sample and the population habits and voting

habits have changed. We have to try to adjust for that. But they

are one of many tools even to go into a decision but, yes, we intend

to continue using them and we’ll do our best to get them judiciously obviously. The penalty for error is very severe.

Mr. WESTIN. ABC News will continue to use exit polls as long as

we believe it will increase the accuracy and timeliness of our reporting. At this point I believe, particularly with the improvements

that we’ve specified and have been discussed, I believe that it increases the accuracy and timeliness of the reporting, which is not

to say they’re perfect. I haven’t found a perfect system yet.

Mr. BURR. Nor have we.

Mr. BOCCARDI. We will continue to use them in the same way we

have used them before. We will be looking very carefully at how

they are done at VNS and what needs to be done to make them

even more reliable than they have been. I repeat a point that I said

at the outset in my opening statement, and I don’t think you were

here, we made one mistake election night and that was on the

early call for Gore in Florida. And exit polls were integral to what

we did that night.

Mr. BURR. Let me go, if I could, to the question of the accuracy

of the statistical data, the statistical model. How many of the companies expressed concern about the model that VNS was using? I’ll

either let the companies address that—— Mr. WESTIN. Prior?

Mr. BURR. Before election night.

Mr. WESTIN. There’s ongoing discussion through the board members at VNS about statistical models and they’re changed fairly

regularly in a somewhat minor regard. As I said earlier, to some

extent we were the victim of our own success, if you will forgive

me. This had been a system that had allowed us to project many,

many elections over a long period of time accurately and it led to

hubris on our part. I will only speak for ABC News in that regard.

But we came to believe that we really could do this with a very,

very high level of accuracy, and it also let us as we went on the

air overstate the certainty with which it was done. I think that the

experience of November will discourage some of the hubris.

Mr. BURR. If I could, let me go to the comment that was said earlier of the caveat to your statement by using exit polling, which

was as long as we have the confidence and the statistical model of

its accuracy, and given that I think most of you would agree with

that caveat, were you assured prior to this election that you

thought your news entities thought that the statistical model was

sufficient?

Mr. HEYWARD. I think we had a lot of confidence in our models.

As David says, obviously we’ve taken a very hard look and we will

127

continue to do so to make sure these mistakes are never repeated.

We had a collision between a system that worked very, very well

for many years and over a couple of thousand of races with an extraordinary election that was so close that it took the Nation 5

weeks to figure out what happened and the Supreme Court to intervene, and that certainly exposed flaws we hadn’t seen before.

But we certainly went in with a great deal of confidence, yes, and

to the degree that we have to readjust our perception I think we

have and will.

Mr. BURR. Is it safe to say that nobody at the table questioned

the statistical model prior to the election?

Mr. HEYWARD. Except for the ongoing process of calibration and

evaluation that David talked about.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair

recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There’s three matters

which I would like to get the witnesses on the record so that we

can use it perhaps to understand what we can anticipate 2 or 4

years from now if it be the case. Can I start with you, Mr.

Boccardi? Each of you may have referred to one or another of these

subjects in the course of your testimony, but I don’t think any of

you have referred to all of them. Do you support Congress enacting

a uniform poll closing bill?

Mr. BOCCARDI. My personal view, and the AP does not take positions on public issues, but my personal view is that it would be a

good idea.

Mr. WESTIN. Wholeheartedly.

Mr. HEYWARD. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. AILES. Yes.

Mr. LACK. Yes.

Mr. MARKEY. Second, will each of you, beginning with Mr.

Boccardi, reaffirm your commitment not to close—not to call any

State before all of the polls within that State have closed?

Mr. BOCCARDI. Unequivocally.

Mr. WESTIN. Yes, as I said earlier.

Mr. HEYWARD. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. AILES. Yes.

Mr. LACK. Yes.

Mr. MARKEY. Third, do you believe that the solution to this VNS

problem in the year 2000 is to collectively throw more resources at

VNS so that the problem is not repeated in subsequent years or is

it in introducing more competition to VNS so that each of you or

groups of you have your own separate polling system so that in and

of itself serves as the check on the others jumping the gun too

quickly for fear then that the other is available to accurately call

the case?

Mr. BOCCARDI. My view at this point, Congressman, is to see if

we can fix VNS.

Mr. MARKEY. Fix VNS.

Mr. BOCCARDI. That’s our view.

Mr. WESTIN. If I can answer both a little bit. I believe that devoting more resources and fixing VNS in the way we’ve discussed is

128

the best way to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of your reporting. Having said that, ABC News is open to a second source if we

believe it is as accurate or more accurate and will work. We don’t

foreclose that possibility in addition to it, but right now our attention is devoted to fixing VNS.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Heyward.

Mr. HEYWARD. We’ve opened both options in our report, Congressman Markey, one to fix VNS or to go a separate way. But realistically, I think it’s important to acknowledge that VNS extends

our reach even, as Joan Konner acknowledged, far beyond what

any of us would be able to do individually. However, I think we are

going to try to develop additional sources, especially in close races,

our own unilateral polling, additional forces on the ground to give

us more checks and balances so that we are not solely reliant on

VNS. But I think that consortium—there are great advantages in

economies of scale that really if used properly and if the recommendations that have been made by the outside report and by

others are valid, I think VNS will be stronger and there is a good

chance it could serve the public even better than it has. But we do

agree that even more sources in close races are useful.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. At CNN our intention, and I underline intention

rather than decision, our intention is to stay with VNS provided

the changes can be made. A news leader is in place already at

VNS. We expected that there will be new technology. There will be

improved methodology. So provided we are assured that that set of

changes, that those sets of changes and others that have been suggested are made. In addition to that, CNN will have a second

source. We intend to have an entirely independent research or polling firm which will do research in close election States. It will examine actual vote returns in key precincts and then compare that

with VNS data. So it’s a double checking system for us and we welcome joiners in the expense of that undertaking.

Mr. MARKEY. If I could follow up with that. The Election Day

polling.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes—no. First of all, we would determine prior to

Election Day what were the close States, where there is likely to

be a very close race, and then we would choose precincts within

those States to do on Election Day.

Mr. MARKEY. On Election Day. Is that the same process you

would be looking at, Mr. Heyward?

Mr. HEYWARD. Yes, but there would also be the option of telephone polls to identify potential absentees in States where that’s

likely to be a factor. That would happen beforehand.

Mr. JOHNSON. And that would also be our allocation.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Mr. Ailes.

Mr. AILES. We’re the new kids on the block and we are the smallest in terms of distribution of the networks and the newest, and

therefore this was our first experience with VNS. Smallest in terms

of distribution. We are doing quite well in the ratings. But the answer is that, sure, competition is great but this is an enormously

expensive process. We’ve heard much made today of the commercial pressures on news. Those commercial pressures sometimes are

good. If you don’t make any money, you can’t buy cameras and you

129

can’t put extra crews out and you can’t pay for polls and you can’t

do some other things that you would like to do. Is it best to stay

with VNS? If you reinvent a new model now and put it out in the

field 3 years from now, are we all going to wake up on election

night and say, gee, the new one didn’t work as well as we thought

it was going to, or should we try to fix the one we have? I think

all of those questions are on the table. I think all of us lean to fixing VNS and perhaps setting up some sort of checking system

against that so that we can take a sample of the sample and try

to determine whether or not we can build in a redundancy there

that will keep us from falling on our faces again. But I think the

bias right now is toward staying with VNS, although other options

are being looked at.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired, but Mr.

Lack.

Mr. LACK. Yes, I would just quickly add that we would like to

see more resources put into VNS. We support that. We believe that

VNS can be improved, fixed if you will. The emphasis for NBC

News, which I referenced in my opening remarks, is to do some

original reporting on our own. It may support the data collection

that we’re seeing during the course of an election night. And we

will explore, if we feel that we can’t get the satisfactory resources

supporting VNS, an alternative system. But for the moment we believe that we can get there. We are going to explore whether they

need another system of checks and balances, and we’re focused

more on our own internal original reporting for election night.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns, is recognized.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Savaglio, has VNS attempted in recent years

to get more money from the networks to update its model computer

system? If so, has this met with resistance? I think if you could

give us a little history. In the first panel we talked to them about

the problem being not just of recent vintage but has been in existence for some time. And you might comment about your discussions

with the networks and has there been any attempt internally on

you folks to try and do remodeling?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Well, the answer to the specific question about

asking for money, that’s by implication been denied. The answer to

that is no. The budgets have been adequate to do the job and have

increased over the election cycles. In 1993, the members invested

a considerable amount of money in upgrading the computer systems and that resulted in a new unified data base, which would be

a part of any new system. In addition to which, in every election

cycle, and this has to be done in the periods between the elections,

because so much of the energy is devoted to covering those elections during the cycles, a considerable amount of updating is done,

reprogramming, segments of the systems have been rewritten and

redesigned. The fact of the matter is that it’s been pointed out that

there are some very glaring errors in November, but by and large

our computer system did function quite well, handled the stress

and the load of a very complicated system and did pretty well.

Just to this, one more point on that. There has been discussions

about updating, of integrating the system, and one of our recommendations is that we plan to work to do that.

130

Mr. STEARNS. What about the absentee ballots? You’ve known

about that absentee ballot problem for some time. Why didn’t you

correct that earlier?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Well, the absentee ballot situation is a more difficult situation. Simply put, it’s not just the matter of updating the

system to accommodate it, because the absentee ballots sort of by

definition are it’s information that is not known. So you have to

find alternative ways of getting it. The fact is in the States where

the largest amount of absentee voting occurs on the West Coast,

California Oregon and Washington, we have implemented steps to

take those into account. We did telephone polls in those three

States and our information was pretty reliable. We do a lot of work

outside of the computer system itself in terms of assessing the absentee votes, recording it, and the issues that have been raised

here just mean that, as we’ve said in our recommendations, that

we need to do further work and because absentee balloting is

spreading and growing in so many other States that it’s going to

have to become a larger part of what we do.

Mr. STEARNS. Now, I have here that the VNS system has been

under development and you’ve had an analysis since 1993, and it

says here because of budget limitations the project has not moved

beyond the creation of a partially unified data base. And so even

in your discussion, why didn’t you make it part of the computer

system early on? I don’t understand why the delay, and why not

doing it proper when it has such significance.

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Well—— Mr. STEARNS. Isn’t it true since 1993 you’ve been working on this

problem?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. I wouldn’t say that. There was a project in 1993

where the members spent several million dollars on updating the

system and that did result in the unified data base. What took

place in terms of working on it between then and now I’m really

not aware of.

Mr. STEARNS. It says partially unified data base. Why did not we

complete it?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Again, it’s a very complex system and there are

portions of the projection system that are accounted for on the election night that are not in the unified data base.

Mr. STEARNS. They’re mapping the genome here during the last

several years. Certainly you could map here the parts of the unified

data base, couldn’t you?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Well, again as I said, the system, the projection

system, which are the two basic systems, there are a number of

systems, but the projection system operates on an election night

file that is generated from the unified data base, but does operate

separately.

Mr. STEARNS. I yield back.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentlemen’s time is expired. The Chair

recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch, for a round of

questions.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In previous

questioning I mentioned some statistical analysis that the Miami

Herald has done on the election. I just want to briefly quote and

submit it for the record.

131

[The material referred to appears at pg. 225.]

Mr. DEUTSCH. The ballots in majority black precincts were discarded at a rate three times higher than those in nonblack precincts. Nearly one in every 10 ballots in the majority black precincts went unrecorded. In the majority white precincts the discard

rate was less than one ballot in 38. In fact, 19 of the 20 precincts

with the highest spoilage rate in the State were heavily black

neighborhoods in Duval. The analysis found all had at least a fifth

of their ballots tossed out. A fifth of their ballots tossed out, 20 percent. And I guess I bring this again to raise the issue and actually

ask Dr. Edelman just to respond to it. I don’t think there’s any

question that you can make an analysis to compensate for the fact

that African Americans’ votes were not counted. You could do a statistical analysis and say because of literacy issues and because of

the fact that black votes were not counted as much, we can make

our analysis more accurate.

That’s one thing you can do. And I don’t think that we should

ask you to do that as the U.S. Congress. I think what we ought

to be talking about, Mr. Chairman, is what I keep bringing back.

We can correct for the reality of what happened in this election, an

election that when, as I mentioned, if this was a foreign country

and we had American election observers, we would—no one would

consider this a legitimate process. If I can ask Mr. Edelman to directly respond to that.

Chairman TAUZIN. Would the gentleman yield for a second? I

think we had an understanding that he would not testify today. Is

that correct?

Mr. EDELMAN. Nobody told me.

Chairman TAUZIN. I don’t think he was sworn in. That’s the

problem. Is that it?

Mr. DEUTSCH. He’s on the witness list, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. I see. We have to go through that process if

you want to direct questions to him.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I would be happy to because he’s the only statistician and I would like to ask him a very simple question. The fact

that black——

Chairman TAUZIN. If the gentleman will suspend for a second, let

me do the formalities. Sir, do you realize that under our practices

the process of taking our testimony under oath is our practice. Do

you have any objection to testifying under oath?

Mr. EDELMAN. No, sir.

Chairman TAUZIN. The Chair then advises you under the rules

of the House and the rules of the committee you are entitled to be

advised by counsel. Do you wish to be advised by counsel during

your testimony here today?

Mr. EDELMAN. Yes.

Chairman TAUZIN. But your counsel will not testify today, is that

correct?

Mr. EDELMAN. Yes.

Chairman TAUZIN. Raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TAUZIN. Sir, you are properly sworn and you can answer the questions.

132

Mr. DEUTSCH. As you and I spoke, I guess it was yesterday, if

you can just respond to the issues that I’ve raised. The fact that

black voters votes were not counted, could that have an effect on

them misjudging the results?

Mr. EDELMAN. The exit poll measures people who believe they

voted. We interview people as they leave the polling place and they

fill out the questionnaires. We do not know if their vote was counted. That’s a whole new development that I think all of us are becoming much more aware of. So the exit poll in Florida was overstating the Democrat. So we don’t know yet just where the under

and over vote is. It is still being counted and it is still being looked

at, but it certainly could be a factor in the error to the exit poll.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Could you respond to the quote, the facts that I

just mentioned, that for instance in 19 of 20 precincts 20 percent

of the votes were uncounted, where statewide it was in the neighborhood of 2 percent? What kind of statistical significance could

that have in actually determining the outcome of the election? I

guess the premise of what happened in Florida is that it wasn’t 500

votes of people who thought they were voting for Al Gore. It wasn’t

5,000 votes. It really was 50 or 75,000 people left the polling place

net who thought they were voting for Al Gore whose votes didn’t

count. How would that affect your results or your exit polling results?

Mr. EDELMAN. Well, if I knew that—the contribution error of the

error in the exit poll was 2.6 percent. So it’s conceivable since the

remaining percent was 3 percent that that could account for that.

But that’s a fairly big assumption. But we would never give that

as a reason for the wrong call in Florida. I mean it would be one

factor in the exit poll being off.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Right, and again I guess I know you’re not giving

it as a reason, but you’re also saying statistically it could be. Can

I just ask why haven’t we investigated that? Why aren’t we focusing on that issue?

I’m just asking. Maybe your results weren’t as bad as you think

they were. Maybe you did a good job or a lot better than this committee is alleging. Maybe you did what you were supposed to do because it would seem that the statistics and the numbers that I’m

pointing out really get back to the point that the exit polls were

a truer reflection of what people’s intentions were than the actual

vote count that occurred in the State of Florida.

Mr. EDELMAN. It’s certainly possible what you’re saying. I’ve

been waiting to see the results of the counting before I can make

any kind of judgment like that, and I frankly have had my hands

busy with a lot of the reports and analyses and everything else

that’s been going on.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Can I just follow up a little bit, and again because

I don’t think we want to do this, but you clearly could make a statistical analysis that in black precincts discount for the fact that

people’s votes don’t count so you can make your results more accurate through that type of adjustment?

Mr. EDELMAN. That’s very risky, from what we’ve known about

this possible error in the exit poll for a good while. But just how

much do you adjust for it? We don’t know. If it were a very simple

number that I could just come up with and put in the computer,

133

I certainly would do it. I don’t know. I don’t know how many people

were affected.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Let me mention there is no reason to believe

that—again Florida is the center of the post-election analysis, but

I don’t believe there is any reason to believe that this phenomenon

of African Americans being discriminated against in terms of voting is any different in any other location in the United States of

America. And I think when we talk about that 34 States with a

bias being Democratic, I think the phenomenon that we are really

looking at is a socioeconomic phenomenon of illiteracy in America,

of functional illiteracy in America, of issues of discrimination that

basically come back to exactly where we see—I don’t see any statistical basis to say that African Americans in Florida are any worse

off than African Americans in any other State. Is that not possible

that the phenomenon you see in the other States is exactly due to

this phenomenon as reported in Florida?

Mr. STEARNS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DEUTSCH. I will be happy to.

Chairman TAUZIN. I would ask that you ask an additional

minute.

Does the gentleman ask the gentleman be extended an additional

minute?

Mr. DEUTSCH. Yes.

Chairman TAUZIN. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman

will yield.

Mr. STEARNS. There are two things. The committee has analyzed

this and they have a graph that shows that 34 States plus the District of Columbia overestimated for Vice President Gore. If that’s

true, then how does what you’re talking about affect—I mean what

difference would that make because it’s already been overestimated?

Mr. DEUTSCH. Right. Taking back my time, the whole point of

what I’m saying is if the overestimation is due to the phenomenon

I’m talking about, and which you have a statistician saying absolutely it could be, then is our concern saying to the statistician

you’re not doing a good job or should our concern as Congress be,

hey, we’ve got this incredibly awful situation in the United States

of America where hundreds of thousands of people’s votes are not

being counted because of a societal bias against African Americans?

Mr. STEARNS. Would the gentleman yield? The point is you’re not

providing any evidence to show that’s true. You’re speculating.

Mr. DEUTSCH. That’s not——

Mr. STEARNS. There is no evidence to show what you’re talking

about.

Mr. DEUTSCH. You’re absolutely incorrect.

Mr. STEARNS. Give me the documentation.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I’m giving you the documentation again, and I will

provide more to the committee, and I wish we spent as much time

from the committee staff and from the Congress’ staff looking at

these kind of numbers than what we are at this committee. But I

just read some statistics from our own State, Mr. Stearns, that 19

out of 20 precincts with the highest spoilage rate, that the ballots

in black precincts, the rate that they were spoiled, not counted, was

134

1 in 10. In white precincts it was one in 38, almost a 400 percent

larger number in the African American precincts.

Mr. STEARNS. We are talking about exit polls.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Right, but the exit polls——

Mr. STEARNS. We’re not talking about what you’re talking about.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I am going to try one last time to try to explain

a little bit of statistics on this.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired, so if you

will respond very quickly.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I will. What the exit poll accurately counts is what

people say who they supported, who they thought they voted for.

But in African American precincts the percentage of people who

said they thought they voted for a person, Al Gore, and that vote

did not count is much higher than in non-African American precincts, and because of that there is a statistical bias. If you don’t

adjust for that phenomenon, there is a statistical bias that would

say Al Gore did better in terms of the actual count, and that is exactly what we are talking about here. That’s the phenomenon.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman has made his point. His time

has expired. The gentleman, Mr. Greenwood, is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said in my

opening remarks, as uncomfortable as you folks in the media make

us when you grill us incessantly, we’re probably—at least this

member is—more uncomfortable grilling you than being grilled.

And some of you have expressed your concerns about the propriety

of this hearing, but I hope as this process winds down you come

to realize that nobody in this committee or this Congress has any

intentions of legislating with regard to your ability to project elections. You can project the elections the day before the election if

you want. It’s none of our business, frankly, whether you do or you

don’t. But we do in the Congress have a decision to make as to

whether to try to respond to what you do, and of course we’ve all

been talking about unifying the closing of the polls in an effort to

do that. And you’ve come here to tell the American people today

that you’re going to use exit polls and you’re going to continue to

project elections. And since we have some concern about whether

that impacts the election process itself, this will educate our decision as we decide whether to make the people in California get up

earlier in the morning to go to the polls or not. They may not welcome that without information we’ve gleaned today.

On that subject I know that Mr. Johnson has been quoted sa saying, Johnson expressed concerns that calls of States in the Eastern

part of the country affect voter turnout in the West where polls are

still open. He questioned surveys that claim no such effect. Quote,

from my days in California I had so many friends who did not go

out and vote when they heard that the election was over. I believe

it’s an influence, a big influence.

I believe at the end of the day it’s a central question for us as

to whether that is a phenomenon that happens or not. I think each

of you relatively heartily endorsed this legislation to close the polls

at the same time, and I would assume the reason you endorsed

that is because you have some concerns about this phenomenon.

135

Can I ask each of you to let the committee know do you believe

or do you at least worry about whether or not folks who have not

yet voted and hear projections from the East are affected by that

call, those projections?

Mr. LACK. I don’t believe there is, as has been discussed earlier

today, any solid evidence that would indicate that there is a voter

suppression as a result of projections in the East, but the reason

I support your point of the uniform poll closing is any perception

that there might be should be avoided and should be eliminated

and to the extent this legislation can put an end to it, put a rest

to the whole subject, I’m fully supportive of it for that reason.

Mr. BOCCARDI. I think we think if you pass this law we will have

to stop to answer the question.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Greenwood, as the person who you quoted, I

spent 13 years in Los Angeles either as president of the Los Angeles Times or publisher of the Los Angeles Times. There were many

different surveys that I saw during those 13 years which indicated

to me a wide array of results. But it was my personal view based

on those 13 years, having met with many Members of Congress,

many city officials and others, the university communities, that

there is a definite effect on voters as it relates to the Presidential

election. In the local races many people still seem to go out on the

local issues, on sheriff and many of the State propositions, for example. But it is a personal belief of mine, and yet I feel it so

strongly that it is a part of the reason why I strongly recommend

the uniform poll closing act.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Ailes.

Mr. AILES. Yeah. I think it’s impossible to determine exactly

what affects—I don’t think that will ever be determined—information affects people and if it’s a blowout election there is no question

about it. If it’s not a blowout election, then it might affect some

people to go out and other people to say home. There’s no way to

determine how it affects people. But in the end I think Ms. Konner

who was on the—if I’ve got her name right, said people have to

vote. In the end people have to take responsibility to vote. Our job

is to gather and distribute, report information, and we will do that,

and we should make it clear to people that what we’re doing on the

screens should not affect their vote.

Perhaps we maybe even need to say that. Please go vote. That’s

fine, I think, the more information the public has and the more responsibility the public takes to go vote, because we learned in this

election every vote counts and it may be too close to call. So I support the legislation. I think it’s simplifies things for everybody. It

eliminates some of the problem, but we are never going to know

the extent or in what direction it swings people.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired, but I see

some of you want to respond. You’re welcome to respond, Mr. Heyward.

Mr. HEYWARD. Very briefly. I think voting is about a matter of

personal responsibility. I think we’re speaking here as citizens as

much as journalists. I think of the different solutions, Congressman

Greenwood, this may be the simplest. The others seem to raise not

only journalistic issues of withholding information that is easily

available but also States rights issues, as one of your colleagues

136

mentioned earlier. To ask States not to report results of an election

that’s completed in their State seems problematic from your perspective.

So I think we’re trying to be good citizens, even though as Mr.

Boccardi said we don’t normally take positions on political issues,

but that’s really behind the endorsement.

Chairman TAUZIN. Mr. Westin.

Mr. WESTIN. I don’t know the answer to the question of the effect. I’ve read some of these studies, in fact, and from what I’ve

read, they generally conclude there isn’t enough data and we don’t

know. It would be somewhat ironic for me to sit here today before

this committee and say when we report something such as the projecting a race, that no one is paying attention to it. I would hope

that some of our audience is paying attention.

Now, what they do with that information I don’t know. I don’t

know whether it encourages them to go to the polls or discourages

them to go to the polls. I don’t think this committee or our audience would want a world in which ABC News or some of my colleagues believe that they knew who the next President of the

United States was, but they sat on the information for a few hours.

Given the way the world works, that would be dangerous, I think.

Therefore, I support this legislation wholeheartedly because I

think once and for all put this behind us, and we wouldn’t have to

talk about it in 4 years or 8 years or 12 years.

Mr. HEYWARD. I would add that Mr. Johnson is a person of extraordinary integrity. If I have to explain to him why I hadn’t

voted, I would definitely blame the networks rather than say I was

too lazy, just felt like going home.

Mr. BOCCARDI. If I might make one short point, Mr. Chairman.

You know, you start down a road here that I think can get pretty

dangerous and pretty difficult. If you go to accept some of the theses now on the table, what about the preelection polling? If there

is a poll that says this candidate is 20 points ahead, as been known

to happen in a congressional district in Louisiana, even more, is

that keeping people from the poll? Well then maybe we shouldn’t

do those. You see where the trail goes. I don’t think that’s a trail

we or you would want to start down.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Worse yet, if the predictions come in too early,

people stop contributing to our campaigns, and that would be a disaster.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank the gentleman.

The gentleman Mr. Stupak I think is next for 5 minutes.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It’s been alleged throughout this hearing that there’s some bias,

network bias, probable bias, political bias by the networks. So do

you believe your networks lean either way, Democrat, Republican?

Mr. Lack, let’s start with you.

Mr. LACK. No. We’ve testified to that fact. We vigorously believe

that there is no evidence of any bias in our reporting.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Ailes.

Mr. AILES. I agree with that, and I say the same thing for Fox.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. No bias whatever, sir.

Mr. HEYWARD. Categorically no bias. Emphatically not.

137

Mr. STUPAK. Let me ask you this question: Hopefully you all saw

the video that we had at the beginning of the hearing. Do you believe the video you saw accurately depicted your coverage on election night?

Mr. HEYWARD. Let me jump in on that, because I think—I certainly hesitate to accuse Congress of misleading editing and distorting what had happened. That would be a dramatic role reversal. I do think that the video, while it was effectively done, did not

actually convey the viewer’s experience of election night. We actually looked at our transcript very carefully, Congressman. And I

think the sense the video gave that Vice President Gore was on an

unstoppable roll I don’t think was reflective of the reality. In fact,

if anything, our outside expert, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who I

mentioned before, concluded that we might have overstated the degree to which President Bush was on a roll. But certainly we displayed the popular vote graphic 15 times between 7 and 11. President Bush was ahead every single time; on the electoral count, 75

out of 100 times.

Mr. STUPAK. So you don’t think the video then reflects——

Mr. HEYWARD. The video that gave the impression that the networks were saying Gore’s got it in the bag I believe was misleading, yes.

Mr. STUPAK. Anyone else care to comment now?

Mr. WESTIN. I would be first to admire a good editing job, and

that was a good editing job, no way about it. I don’t think it fairly

and fully reflected all the statements made. I mean, I could even

read you into the record statements were making around 8:15 in

the evening saying this was a very close race. In fact, we said at

8:18 a candidate could win the big three States and still be in danger of not winning the electoral college, as one example out of several.

As I say, I respect the job that was done, but I don’t think it fully

reflects the experience of the viewer, which was a much more balanced, much closer race throughout the night.

Mr. STUPAK. Let me ask this question. Instead of going all the

way down the line, maybe we want to go down—do you believe we

here today in Congress, this hearing, do you believe we have accurately reflected on your coverage in the 2000 Presidential election?

All of us up here, do you think we’ve accurately reflected how you

handled the 2000 Presidential election?

Mr. WESTIN. You know, with respect, I don’t think that’s my position to judge. I’m here as a member of the Fourth Estate. We

made some serious mistakes that we have to adjust for. The way—

as I refer to my remarks, the way it works in this country, which

I firmly believe in, is we don’t look to the government to correct the

press. We look to the people and the people’s representatives as

represented by this body. We take criticism. We don’t necessarily

enjoy it, but we’re open to it. We should take it into account, we

should listen to it, and we should then take it upon ourselves to

decide what we should adjust to and what we should do in the best

interests of our audience. And if we fail, the audience will judge us,

and they’ll move somewhere else.

Mr. STUPAK. Anyone else care to comment on that?

138

Mr. JOHNSON. Congressman, I would only say in a way it related

to interviews we had with Members here. You will have many accomplishments as a part of your record during the year and will

perhaps make one bad vote or one mistake, and you accuse us, of

course, of focusing on that.

Clearly I think we had an excellent year of coverage of—all the

networks, I think, dedicated an enormous amount of time and effort, too, and I would say that despite what Andy Lack has said,

I agree with what Andy said, I believe we did a very good job in

a campaign year. We did make a mistake that night. You got us.

And I think we are here not only to assure you that we will fix it,

but it won’t happen again.

Mr. STUPAK. No different for any of us up here. We make one

vote our opponent don’t like, and that’s the whole campaign. So, I

mean, just wanted to see how you felt on being on that side.

Let me ask you this question. Mr. Boccardi hit it a little bit. I

wanted to ask it. There’s been a lot of focus on exit polling, but

what about those preelection polls? You believe they influenced voters; when you do an exit poll on the east coast, it influences the

west coast? What about the preelection stuff where you have Gore

up by 5 points going into the election, and all of your networks that

we watched, you had wild swings in your polling throughout this

campaign season. Should that be tightened up? Should that give a

more accurate depiction? Because I don’t know how could you have

such wide swings from network to network.

Mr. BOCCARDI. If you’re squabbling about whether exit polls on

Election Day affect outcome, we’ll be here for 2 weeks talking about

the other polls.

Mr. STUPAK. I don’t think you can make that determination, so

that’s why I asked about preelection polls.

Mr. BOCCARDI. I know of no evidence that people go to the poll

or don’t go to the poll because—to vote because there was a poll.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. But I want to take the opportunity to declare

unequivocally there was no intentional bias in the editing of that

tape.

Mr. AILES. Mr. Chairman, we felt Fox News was underrepresented in that tape and that, therefore, it was biased.

Chairman TAUZIN. Could have been. Who knows? We’ll never

know because there’s no empirical evidence, I swear. You won’t find

it like we didn’t find it.

I also want to tell you, by the way, and this is from the heart,

I don’t think any of us would have hired an outside consultant to

be as critical of the CNN job, to criticize our votes. That was an

act of extraordinary, I think, contribution to this effort. I want to

thank you for doing that. And thank you all for the kind of selfevaluation you did. I think America has something to be grateful

for today. I really mean that. I thank you for that.

The Chair now yields to—who’s next? Mr. Ehrlich.

Mr. EHRLICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This issue of early eastern projections impacting close races in

the West is interesting. Mr. Johnson, I heard your previous comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
139

ment, and I think intuitively it makes sense to me. It make sense

to most people.

Mr. Heyward, I think your earlier testimony—in your earlier testimony you took a different view. Florida was called by ABC at 8,

CBS at 7:50, and NBC at 7:49. We had real close races in Iowa,

Minnesota, New Mexico, Washington and Wisconsin, as you all

know, within a percentage point to one another.

So, it seems to me an Iron Triangle State, we all know the conventional wisdom was those three States were vitally important to

the candidates. They spent their time there, they spent their

money there. I think it makes sense that those early calls do impact Western States.

With regard to Michigan—and I’ll let you answer, by the way, I

just want to make another point—I guess what really bothers me

is VNS makes its call at 9:23, and ABC makes its call at 8:06. CBS

makes its call at 8. NBC makes its call at 8:02. Fox makes its call

at 8:05, and CNN makes its call at 8, maybe the critical State in

the election, and I understand you’re not necessarily following precisely of VNS, but that concerns me.

So I would like you to respond to one or both points I just made,

one with regard to VNS. I think you have in your earlier testimony.

But clearly intuitive, I think for most people it makes sense if you

have close races in the West, early projections in critical States in

the East may impact the bottom line of a Presidential election.

Mr. HEYWARD. As has been said before and a lot, I don’t believe

there’s conclusive evidence, but I don’t think we have. And there’s

a network solution to the issue of effects in the West. I think the

solution, as we’ve said, is the uniform poll closing, because we’ve

all said we’re going to withhold the call at any given State until

all the polls are closed there. So that would take care of the Florida

problem going forward.

In other words, whatever we agree or disagree or be able to figure out what happened in the Panhandle, but that’s not going to

be an issue next time because everybody is going to wait until

those polls are closed. So that, I think, is as far as we have all said

we’re going to go.

In terms of the West, I don’t see what the networks could do. I

don’t think it’s realistic to ask us to hold back the news of an election that’s complete, Secretary of State is reporting the results, because of this perceived effect. I think this other solution, as I said

earlier to Congressman Greenwood, is much simpler.

I didn’t quite understand your question on Michigan. Forgive me.

Mr. EHRLICH. You all quite appropriately point out Pennsylvania,

Florida, Michigan, the Iron Triangle. It’s interesting to me that you

all look to VNS and use VNS, and not necessarily in lockstep, but

certainly very relevant. Yet you make—all of you made your calls

almost 11⁄2 hours before they made their call in such a critical

State. Pennsylvania, Eastern State, very important State, VNS

made their call at 9:24, yet CBS made their call at 8:47, and CNN

made their call at 8:48. These are really critical States that people

are looking to.

As I said here again with regard to impacts on the West, I think

it’s relevant.

140

Mr. HEYWARD. I think what this really illustrates, we’re in the

curious position here of facing the suggestion that we’re both not

competitive enough and too competitive in the situation. I think

each decision desk is honestly trying to evaluate the data as best

as it can in sifting many ingredients. We, coincidentally, given the

chairman and the ranking minority member, happened to call both

Michigan and Louisiana right at poll closing, which VNS did not.

That’s because our decision desk conscientiously trying to be accurate believed that we had enough information to make the call, and

it turned out in both cases to be correct.

There is—there is a journalistic imperative to be accurate and to

be timely. I think being accurate, as we’ve heard here, is much

more important than being timely. But to some degree those imperatives have collided, but not in those two States and not in

Pennsylvania where we made calls that were accurate. I don’t see

what the problem is if we call a State at poll closing based on the

data that our decision desk has and it’s right.

Mr. EHRLICH. It’s interesting given the relevance of VNS, I

guess—and you all have appropriately, I guess, criticized the exit

polling earlier with regard to Michigan. I’m getting information

that only 29 of 45 exit poll precincts were reporting when the call

was made. That’s—that’s not real good science, I guess.

Mr. HEYWARD. Our decision desk was very confident of the call.

In fact, Michigan has a large exit poll sample, and the other indicators that were used, as I mentioned earlier—the exit poll is just

one of many tools that these analysts used—were in sync, and the

feeling was that this network, and obviously some of the others

that made early calls there, that we could go ahead. We’re not entirely dependent on VNS. We also have this independent decisionmaking body, and in this case the call was correct, as was the call

to Louisiana.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. If anyone

wants to respond.

Mr. Ailes.

Mr. AILES. I would just like to comment, two quick comments,

the first one a personal comment. It was my personal view after

looking at the coverage that we all made so much out of Michigan,

Pennsylvania and Florida without going on to say there are other

mathematical models for people to win. That there was a perception created on election night that focused on three States, and

once those States went down, people walked away. I think I was

with a group of people, and, frankly, when Florida went, 40 percent

of the room emptied out and said, well, it’s over, we’re going home.

So I think there was some—it’s just a personal view, and I’ve

told our journalists that we ought to be careful about telling people

that this is how the election—you’re going to be able to know who

won, because we all hire outside contributors and consultants and

political people to tell us these things, and they all came to that

conclusion. It was certainly true they were all important, but I

think that we probably overstated and oversimplified it.

The other thing I would say is that, having watched the decision

desk this time and watched in other cases, these are incredibly

dedicated people, Republicans and Democrats. We happen to have

three Democrats, one Republican on our decision desk. These are

141

not partisans. These—at that night, these are people who are trying to get it right. They are desperate to try to get information and

look at those screens and check facts, and they are professionals,

and they feel the worst about screwing up, which is what happened

on election night. It was a monumental screw-up. Everybody did it.

But these are individuals who are hard-working, dedicated, and

really not trying to do anything weird. They’re trying to get something right.

Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Ailes, I am out of time. I appreciate your forthright answer; both of you, in fact. I had a similar near-death experience in Timonium, Maryland, at 7:52 p.m. that evening. So I appreciate it.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The gentleman from Texas Mr. Green is recognized.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know it’s been a long day, and I appreciate these folks being

here.

It’s interesting, Mr. Ailes, you said you have three Democrats

and one Republican on your decision desk. That isn’t the one Republican who kept calling Austin, was it, that we heard earlier

from one of my colleagues?

Mr. AILES. You want an answer to that, or was that rhetorical?

Mr. GREEN. You can answer it. I thought it was interesting,

though, because of the publicity.

Mr. AILES. It’s incorrect. We didn’t keep calling Austin. But go

ahead.

Mr. GREEN. The exit polls versus before election polls, I think,

is correct. I think each of the networks have realized the problem

we have. But, again, if we back it up, if we remember, the before

election poll showed George Bush winning the popular vote and Al

Gore squeaking by on electoral victory. So I don’t know if that impacted the election any because it was actually the reverse when— after the U.S. Supreme Court got through.

I guess I feel frustrated like you do because blaming the election

process, not just election night, now that was you all’s responsibility, but the next weeks were literally a nightmare for those of

us getting up every morning. I felt like I was in Groundhog, the

movie, because every morning I would get up and see Tallahassee

or see Palm Beach. I didn’t go to Florida. Coming from Texas I

wouldn’t go, Mr. Buyer, unless they’d let me count the votes, but

because of the problems that we were seeing literally played out for

our Nation.

And so that was—I think that’s what our focus ought to be.

You’ve agreed the things that need to be done, and I think each

network independently and by the CNN analysis report talked

about what needs to be done.

Now, the question I have, though, is we realize that you’re going

to correct what was done on an election night and be more assured

of what’s happening. But the voter education, it frustrates me

when I see the number of ballots that are discarded of people that

said they came out and voted for Al Gore or George Bush, but their

vote didn’t count. What can the networks do to help that prior to

the election to say, look, we have five different ways, or how many

ways we count votes in our country or how we ballot.

142

I know in my own area in Houston, we have two local affiliates,

CBS and NBC, who for the last 2 years have been providing time

for candidates to go in. We appreciate that, although, I always said

we really don’t need 5 minutes; you can do everything in 2 minutes. But can the networks do something to help on voter education

to make sure that those folks can—well, they know how to vote?

Mr. BOCCARDI. I think it goes without saying that next time before the election there’s going to be a raft of stories illustrated with

graphics and almost step-by-step instruction about how to vote. I

think you can count on that. Whether that’s going to make any difference, I haven’t the slightest idea.

Mr. AILES. Unless we can put that in the middle of Temptation

Island, I don’t know if the people are going to watch it. So I think

that trying to do voter education is—in the middle of commercial

television is not the easiest thing to do.

Mr. GREEN. I love the setting on Temptation Island.

Any other responses?

Let me just say a little personal note, because I notice in one of

the points that one of my colleagues made with—the exit polling

was really the story, and oftentimes it became in—today it became

the story, the exit poll. One of the things I noticed, and it happens

on network news and even our local news, is oftentimes Temptation Island may be promoted, or whatever is going on on Temptation Island gets more coverage on the news than sometimes other

hard news items.

Has anybody ever talked—since you’re all here today, it’s interesting, because I like—all of us are news junkies. I will see things

that come up that are reporting on what is maybe happening that

night on a sitcom or something in the news segment. Has that ever

been discussed in some of the—I know it has nothing to do with

today, but it’s interesting.

Mr. WESTIN. I guess I’ll speak for ABC News. In our news programs we exercise our own independent editorial judgment about

what is newsworthy or of interest to our viewers or what isn’t,

frankly sometimes to the chagrin of the company that surrounds us

because they would either not like us to report on someone else’s

program or do so on ours. But we’re entirely independent. There’s

a church and State issue there. If you see it on a newscast on ABC

News—and I’m sure this is true for my colleagues—if you see it on

an ABC newscast, it’s because ABC News has made an independent editorial judgment that we think this is newsworthy and

something that our audience is interested in.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Shimkus for a round of questions.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I’m sorry. I’ve been in and out the whole day, but

I appreciate the testimony.

A simple question that is posed by the charts, if you will. Based

upon the research done by committee staff, Michigan and Pennsylvania were aggressively called when they had similar high crit

numbers. The question I want to ask is why wasn’t—why weren’t—

especially with all these literary and broadcast types and English

majors, why weren’t Ohio, Georgia and Virginia not called as aggressively as Michigan and Pennsylvania?

143

Mr. WESTIN. Just speaking for ABC News, Virginia was called 28

minutes after poll closing, which was much faster than Michigan

or Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania for us was 79 minutes after poll

closing.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Michigan was called at poll closing; is that correct?

Mr. WESTIN. No. For ABC News it was actually 6 minutes after;

but very close, that’s right.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And Virginia was 28 minutes after poll closing.

Mr. WESTIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHIMKUS. When the numbers are—would justify as quick of

a calling as Michigan and Pennsylvania—— Mr. WESTIN. Well, you have to forgive me because I can’t read

that chart.

Mr. SHIMKUS. We can fix that for you. We’ll just put it right up.

Mr. WESTIN. So I don’t know what you’re looking at. But let me

explain something to you. There’s been some talk about this legendary crit.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me get to—my question was based on the research of the staff. Let me just give you the numbers, and you can

make a determination of how you can respond to the question. If

you look at Michigan and Pennsylvania, the crit needed to win was

2.6. The crit was 2.4. Likewise Pennsylvania crit needed to win was

2.6. Crit was 2.2. Here the crit in Ohio, Georgia and Virginia was

in excess of the crit needed to win, but they were called much later

than Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Chairman TAUZIN. I think for clarity—would the gentleman

yield? I think for clarity we ought to again explain to those who

are watching and listen the crit, that number that Mr. Shimkus is

citing is that critical statistical number that is a minimum requirement before a State under VNS analysis can safely be called for a

candidate. And the question, as I understand this question, is that

in two States, Pennsylvania and Michigan, it appears as though

those States were called before the crit numbers were achieved,

and yet a number of other States achieved their critical numbers

and were not called for a significant length of time.

Thank you, Mr. Shimkus.

Mr. WESTIN. If I could respond, and I apologize if this is a little

detailed. First of all, there’s not just one crit number on the decision screen that appears that our decision team looks at. There’s

a separate crit number for each one of the models of which there

are several, and those different models have different sorts of information put into them. So it depends—it’s hard for me on the basis

of this to respond because often the crit number you may be looking at is actually the composite.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Actually the ones that we’re looking for are the

best numbers.

Mr. WESTIN. Right, but sometimes in the model, the best model

that kicks out on this decision screen is the composite, which is

heavily weighted by prepolling, preelection polls, sort of a weighted

average of preelection polls, which is not as valuable. So it depends.

The main point I wanted to make—— Mr. SHIMKUS. But all the other models will show lower crits.

This is the highest one.

144

Mr. WESTIN. No, but that—with respect, that is not exactly the

point. But the point I’m trying to make is this.

Mr. SHIMKUS. But that’s my point.

Mr. WESTIN. There is no magic to crit numbers. A crit number

simply is a comparison of the margin that is being shown in a

given statistical model either from the exit poll or from the actual

vote tally, a comparison of that with the margin of error, which

could be big or could be little. There is no magic crit number. For

VNS they have a limit. That’s right. We do not. That is one of the

factors we take into account. There are a number of other factors.

That’s why we employ all the people we do on the decision desk to

exercise their judgment based on past experience and their knowledge of the models and things.

Mr. SHIMKUS. So what’s your tolerance for risk?

Mr. WESTIN. I want to make sure it’s accurate.

Chairman TAUZIN. Would the gentleman yield a second?

Would you just answer this Mr. Westin: Was Michigan an aggressive call?

Mr. WESTIN. I believe that Michigan was reasonable, but, yes, it

was aggressive. Yes. There were other aggressive calls made as

well. Alabama, in my judgment, looking at the decisions reached

today, was an aggressive call the other way, but it was a reasonable call based on the data in the decisions reached as they’re replicated now.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Edelman, you agree there was too aggressive

of calling; am I not correct?

And as you answer that, are some of these statistics in line with

that evaluation?

Mr. EDELMAN. Well, let me say a couple of things about the

screens. There’s some problems in the ways that you all are reading the screens, and I think that’s leading to some of the confusion.

So if could have a minute, I’d like to explain that.

First of all, the screen is only one piece of information that we

use when I make a call. There’s other additional information that

goes into it. There’s—we have research on absentee voting, and we

have that available to us when we’re making the projection. So

even though that number is not on the screen, it’s available to a

person making a decision.

The other information we have is we have the history of that

State in terms of any kind of errors in the exit polling in the State.

So we have that information as well. So we have that kind of information as well as we have information about what’s been going on

that night, and that is also affecting how we do that.

So to just take a number from the screen is not a very—it’s not

a sufficient way of commenting on our process, or on commenting

on the risk.

There’s another problem as well, and that is like in Michigan you

say there are 29 out of 45 exit poll precincts that I believe that—

I would have to check your screen, but the screen—and we overlay

exit poll precincts when we get real vote, so it may look like there’s

less exit poll precincts, and it is because we have real vote in for

those precincts. With all those in mind, it’s much more a judgment.

The decision is something where the person making a decision has

to take all these kinds of factors into mind.

145

Mr. SHIMKUS. You can understand us laymen trying to figure out

these formulas and variables and stuff.

Mr. EDELMAN. Oh, yeah. I have been working with your staff.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Thank the gentleman.

The gentlelady Ms. DeGette is recognized.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now, all of you gentlemen in your opening statements talked

about the reason why there’s this push for early calling and exit

polling is competitive—competitiveness among your networks,

right? I would say that would be accurate. All of you came in here,

in response to Mr. Greenwood’s question, some are more enthusiastic than others about a uniform poll closing time. But all of you

said you don’t really think that the current lack of a consistent poll

closing time is changing elections. Right? Would that be accurate?

Do you think that because we have disparity in poll closing times

that’s changing elections? Do any of you think that?

Mr. AILES. We think we haven’t been able to determine empirical

data to determine that.

Mr. JOHNSON. I personally do think.

Ms. DEGETTE. You think so.

Here’s my question: Let’s say we adopt a uniform national poll

closing time, which, in my mind, being a westerner, will raise some

issues. You’re closing the polls at 9 in the East. You’re kind of

fudging with daylight savings time in California and other places.

Don’t you think networks will find some other way to then make

this election interesting? Mr. Boccardi talked about it a little bit

when he said, I mean, after all, we do pre-Election Day polling.

What about—I mean, exit polling right now doesn’t happen at 7

p.m. when the polls close. What are the networks going to do earlier in the day now that they can’t start projecting New York and

some of the other Eastern States well before California and the

other Western States?

Mr. HEYWARD. We already for a long time have refrained from

characterizing races, and we’re very careful what kind of language

we use. As you know, Congresswoman DeGette, this information

starts coming in very early afternoon. In fact, a lot of Members of

Congress call us for it even though we don’t release it to the public.

But—so I think we, you know, it’s sort of our problem. And I don’t

say that to be flip at all. It’s not Congress’s job to make our life

easier, make the election interesting. We will report.

Ms. DEGETTE. But that’s my point. I think you will report. And

I think, you know, you come in here and you testify, look we

won’t—we won’t report on—we won’t call a race until a State is

closed. If you have a national time, then all States will theoretically close at once. So don’t——

Mr. HEYWARD. What I’m saying is——

Ms. DEGETTE. So don’t you think that a practice will develop earlier in the day where you may not call a State, but you don’t have

to call a State?

Mr. HEYWARD. I don’t think so, because we have good evidence

that that’s not the case. We’ve already—and actually in some of the

halcyon days that the chairman was referring to with those quotes

earlier, there was characterization before some of the agreements

146

that were made with Congress in the mid-’80’s where races were

characterized right and left. The exact kind of the effect that you’re

worried about happened, kind of a wink and a nod and here’s

what’s really happening.

But we’ve exercised enormous restraint, and we have—I think

you would be—I hope you would be impressed by the intensity of

the debate at 6:30 when the evening news goes on in the East exactly what we can and cannot say to comply with what we said.

Ms. DEGETTE. I understand that.

Mr. Lack, do you feel that way as well?

Mr. LACK. I don’t believe it’s going to be an issue for us. We will

report it when we get it, and we’ll report it in a way that it ought

to be reported, but we’re not going to be sitting around, gee, because we can’t report it earlier, we have nothing to do.

Ms. DEGETTE. No, no. It’s like what Mr. Heyward saying the

wink and the nudge, you know, you’re not calling it, but you’re saying it’s looking pretty good for—— Mr. HEYWARD. My point is that we don’t do that, and we won’t.

Ms. DEGETTE. My question is will you slip into that because now

you don’t have—— Mr. HEYWARD. I don’t think so.

Ms. DEGETTE. [continuing] the horse race?

Mr. LACK. No.

Mr. BOCCARDI. I think one thing, that an assumption that’s sort

of built into the questioning here is that uniform poll closing is a

magic bullet that is going to solve everything. All the polls will

close at the same time.

The reporting processes in all the States are not uniform now

from the current closing. Some States come in more quickly, some

States come in more slowly. This morning there was a reference to

Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. So there’s going to be a race after the

poll closing that will engage us all in trying to understand what’s

happening. What we’re taking off the table is the poll close.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you.

Mr. Ailes.

Mr. AILES. When Walter Cronkite first went on the air with his

evening newscast at CBS, it was 15 minutes in length. The biggest

concern at CBS was of everybody running around in the halls trying to figure out is there enough news in the world to fill 15 minutes. Now that you have these endless news channels, we are very

creative. I think what it will do is force the creativity level down

the ticket to more referendums that are going on around the country, other interesting side-bar stories related to the election.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you.

Mr. Boccardi just made my point exactly. It’s not—the magic bullet here is not a uniform poll closing. I think that anybody who

thinks that that will solve the problem, I think it helps, but I think

that there may be other problems we need to look at as well, and

I think that’s part of it.

Another issue, and perhaps some of our experts from VNS can

answer this—— Chairman TAUZIN. The gentlelady’s time has expired, but she’ll

be allowed to go ahead and finish that question.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

147

With increased absentee voting, particularly in some of the Western States, I understand you factor in some absentee voting. In

Colorado in the last cycle, 40 percent of the ballots were absentee.

This doesn’t even compare to places like Washington and Oregon.

Now, places like Colorado are going to mail-in voting, and we are

beginning to see some thought of Internet voting nationwide. How

on Earth are you going to be able to do projections of that when

it happens on such a widescale level?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDELMAN. Well, we’ve been doing that—telephone polls in

Washington and California and Oregon, and we’ve done it in Texas

in previous elections, and it appears to be pretty accurate. And I

think I—we’ll have to see how it goes. We did very well in Oregon

this year, and that was all mail ballot.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank the gentlelady.

I have a quote I might tell the gentlelady from Tim Worth in a

1984 hearing. It’s rather interesting. He asks the question, why

should someone bother to go to a poll and cast a vote when the conclusions have already been announced? Here’s his own recollection:

I vividly remember voters in west Denver precincts leaving the

polling places in lines in which they were standing without exercising their franchise as soon as they heard the results were announced. So it may not be a magic bullet, but it is certainly worth

consideration.

Ms. DEGETTE. If the gentleman will yield. There’s a lot of issues

in urban areas like Denver. Part of it is early announcement of results; part of it is people having to wait in line for 2 hours or more

to vote, which is part of what we saw in Florida this last election.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank the gentlelady.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Buyer for a round of questions.

Mr. BUYER. Thank you. Gentlemen, I noted that you didn’t particularly agree with the comments that I made earlier since most

of you referred to them, that we shouldn’t look at this and say the

networks made early aggressive calls for Gore calls, and that there

is no evidence that there was bias at the decision desks. In my

home State of Indiana, it’s not even debated whether there’s bias

among some of the news. We come to this debate and say, well, we

recognize that Fox is more conservative than some of the others

and that jokes are made about CNN over the last 8 years.

So when I look at the events of election night 2000, and I’ve

pored through all the testimony and evidence you’ve provided, it

seems you have an editorial problem. The analysis by Dr. Edelman

is pretty tough on the decision desk. This whole question about

what is an acceptable level of risk when the decision desk makes

the call is a key aspect.

I want to compliment Fox for being very open with the committee

investigators about who were the individuals that were on its decision desk. Fox revealed their political affiliations. Others weren’t as

free with this information. I can understand why. You say, that’s

your prerogative, those are your decisions and stay out of your

business, but you invite this scrutiny. You invite this when such

huge mistakes are made.

I really don’t think Congress should be micromanaging in your

business. I welcome your thoughts on it, but I really don’t think we

148

should be. And I really believe that you want to get it right, because if you don’t get it right, you pay a price to the public.

Let me do two things before I ask a question. There are two articles that I would like, to be placed in the record. One is an article

by Alicia C. Shepard on How They Blew It, authored from the

American Journalism Review. It’s on what happened at ABC. The

other is an article titled A Hard Day’s Night, by John Ellis, a firsthand account on election night in Insight Magazine. I would offer

these both to be introduced.

Chairman TAUZIN. Without objection, they’re both accepted into

the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

[January 2001/February 2001]

HOW THEY BLEW IT

By Alicia C. Shepard, Senior Writer, American Journalism Review

A BEHIND-THE-SCENES LOOK AT THE TELEVISION NETWORKS, DISMAL PERFORMANCE ON

ELECTION NIGHT.

As votes began streaming into Voter News Service’s headquarters after Florida’s

7 p.m. poll closing, it seemed clear to many network prognosticators that Al Gore

was going to clobber George W. Bush in the Sunshine State. What a story. Florida’s

governor could not deliver the votes for his older brother.

But not all experts hired to help the TV networks on election night thought Florida was a done deal for the vice president 50 minutes after the polls closed. Some

didn’t trust the accuracy of Voter News Service projection models, models which

ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have relied on for 10 years and which only once had incorrectly projected a major race.

In the end, the doubters were right. At least three ABC analysts warned against

calling Florida for Gore, but their advice went unheeded.

It didn’t match the VNS models. Besides, raw votes from 120 key sample precincts

and votes trickling in from counties were tracking with exit poll data collected that

day at 45 sample precincts. Exit poll data and sample precinct votes churned

through models that analyzed past voting patterns, factored in exit poll biases, and

correlated how candidates stacked up against previous contenders. Around 7:45

p.m., exit poll data, which began coming in at lunchtime, showed a 6.6 percent lead

for Gore over Bush. But election analysts knew only a fool would call Florida for

Gore based on exit poll information alone.

As votes arrived from sample precincts carefully chosen to represent voters across

the state, the model predicted a 5.4 percent lead for Gore. It indicated Gore needed

a ‘‘critical value’’ a statistical degree of certainty of 2.6 or higher before any network

could comfortably hand the vice president Florida. At 7:50 p.m., the ‘‘critical value’’

showed 3.2 for Gore. The Voter News Service model was more than 99.5 percent

sure Gore would carry the state.

Under ‘‘status,’’ at 7:50 p.m. the VNS screen said: ‘‘Call.’’

In the race to be first, NBC ‘‘won,’’ jumping even before VNS at 7:49 p.m.

CBS waited one minute. Warren Mitofsky, who invented exit polls in 1967, has

been in the race-calling business for 33 years. He ran CBS’ election unit from 1972

until 1990 and is known for his caution. Mitofsky, working for CBS and CNN, had

vote totals from 12 of 120 sample precincts and data from 38 exit poll precincts.

Gore was doing so well that he concluded exit polls had been overstating Bush’s

numbers. ‘‘The real votes were telling us Gore was ahead,’’ says Mitofsky. ‘‘The exit

poll data gave us a slight lead for Gore, and the overlap of the two was telling us

that the exit poll data should have given Gore more support.’’

There are three sources of data that VNS uses for its projections. Exit poll results,

the least accurate of the three, come in three times during the day. They are only

used to project winners. Once the polls close, raw votes from sample precincts are

phoned in and measured against exit poll data. The tally that counts the actual vote

total comes in throughout the evening.

At 7:50 p.m., Mitofsky and his partner, Joe Lenski, confidently instructed CBS

and CNN to call Florida for Gore. Fox News Channel, in the presidential projection

business for only the second time, followed suit at 7:52, joined by the Associated

Press at 7:53 and CNN at 7:55.

149

‘‘The sad fact is that was a straightforward call,’’ says Jonathan P. Wolman, AP’s

executive editor. ‘‘VNS’ projection material provides a guidepost that warns you statistically if there’s a bias in the material that might skew the results. In this case,

that bias indicator said it might be underestimating Gore’s advantage.’’

But not everyone saw things that way.

At VNS’ temporary quarters on the 93rd floor of Manhattan’s World Trade Center, two political scientists working for ABC, each with a strong statistical background, didn’t think the Florida result was clear-cut. Nor did they completely trust

the VNS model. When the decision desk telephoned the two analysts asking, ‘‘Can

we make the call?’’ both men advised against awarding Florida to Gore.

Polling places in Florida’s Panhandle in the Central Time Zone wouldn’t close for

10 more minutes. Only 237,115 actual votes had been tabulated in a state with 8.8

million registered voters. But other factors involving statistical probabilities and

VNS models troubled Kenneth Goldstein, of the University of Wisconsin, and Christopher Achen, of the University of Michigan, where election surveys were pioneered

in the 1940s.

Achen had flown to New York City six days before the election to prepare for the

big night. He spent four days studying VNS models, trying to pinpoint why they

had screwed up in picking the winner of the 1996 New Hampshire Senate race.

The networks ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC and the AP created VNS in 1993. The

idea was to save money by pooling resources and receiving data amassed by a single

source. Fox joined the consortium in 1996.

For the most part, the setup has worked well. VNS projections have largely been

accurate, to the point that they have virtually been treated as facts, a state called

for one candidate moments after polls close is seen as decided. But four years ago,

the system failed: Each network, relying on exit polls, prematurely called New

Hampshire for Democratic Senate challenger Dick Swett. When the votes were

counted, it turned out Republican Sen. Robert C. Smith had been re-elected.

‘‘I dug in and went over that as extensively as 30 years of experience would allow

me,’’ says Achen. ‘‘I worked out a rule of thumb to protect myself on election night

from it happening again.’’ Achen was so determined to prevent a similar error that

ABC colleagues began referring to him as ‘‘Mr. New Hampshire.’’

Looking at the Florida data around 7:30 p.m., Achen noticed the Gore exit poll

numbers were higher than VNS had predicted. This bothered him because exit polls

tend to have a Democratic bias. Plus, not all exit poll data was in before 8 p.m. And

what about absentee votes? Analysts expected 10 percent of Florida votes to be absentee. With about 6 million people expected to vote, that’s 600,000 votes that exit

polls know nothing about.

‘‘But first and foremost,’’ says Achen, ‘‘when I applied my rule of thumb to protect

ABC against mistakes, it indicated it was too soon to call.’’

And so, while other networks were falling all over one another to declare Gore

the victor in Florida, Achen held back. While the VNS model indicated more than

99 percent certainty for Gore, Achen saw it as more like 85 percent.

Neither he nor Goldstein advocated making the call. There was too much at stake

to move precipitously. ‘‘It wasn’t like we were calling an off-year dog catcher race

in North Dakota,’’ Goldstein says. ‘‘Besides, what’s the hurry?’’

At ABC headquarters on Manhattan’s West Side, Paul Freedman was part of the

six-person decision team formed to call the Senate, gubernatorial and presidential

races. Freedman, a University of Virginia political scientist, also thought it was too

early. ‘‘It’s fair to say the three of us wanted to be more confident before making

a call, because we thought there was too much uncertainty in the estimate,’’ says

Freedman. Others, he says, were also endorsing caution.

But they weren’t advising in a vacuum.

By 8 p.m., the other networks were flashing Florida for Gore. Pundits were proclaiming that a Gore win there just might put him in the White House before the

11 o’clock news. Despite the misgivings of its experts, ABC’s team couldn’t resist the

competitive pressure, and ABC decision desk chief Carolyn Smith made the call.

None of the advisers claims to be a white knight. They could have argued their

case more forcefully, but they didn’t. They are academics hired to share their wisdom, not adrenaline-charged journalists impatient to make a decision.

So, at 8:02 p.m., anchor Peter Jennings joined the pack. ‘‘ABC News projects that

Al Gore wins the state of Florida and its 25 electoral votes,’’ said Jennings. ‘‘Give

him the first big state momentum of the evening. This is the biggest state where

the race has been close, the fourth biggest electoral prize.

As Jennings spoke, Goldstein turned to Achen. ‘‘I think they may have fallen into

the New Hampshire trap,’’ he said.

Gore’s lead began to shrink within 10 minutes of ABC’s call.

150

‘‘Think how we would have felt if we had really had the courage of our convictions

and if ABC hadn’t called it,’’ Achen says. ‘‘But we didn’t. The team was wrong, and

I’m part of the team. I don’t want to say it wasn’t my fault.’’ Election night is showtime for the networks. The story is huge and fast-unfolding,

and competition is fierce. With so much on the line, each network prepares extensively, beginning years before the presidential vote. They hire experts, spend lavishly on dazzling graphics, design eye-catching sets, and do more research than a

Ph.D. requires.

The mission is simple: Get it right. During a November rehearsal, Smith lectured

ABC election night personnel for 15 minutes, stressing that ‘‘we weren’t in a race

to be first,’’ recalls Craig Ammerman, a former executive editor of the old Philadelphia Bulletin who has worked every national election for ABC since 1982. ‘‘We were

there to get it right. Especially since the presidential race was so close.’’ But the drive to be first is powerful. This is a tricky dance when all of the networks are getting the same information at the same time and in the same way. It’s particularly dicey in the case of an exceptionally tight election.

Sharing election data among networks began in 1964. That’s when ABC, NBC and

CBS banded together to form News Election Service to collect poll data and enter

it into computers. While they shared vote counts, each news division ran its own

election unit and made its own calls. Exit polls were used in the 1970s, but only

to flesh out voting patterns and trends. That is, until NBC scooped everyone in 1980

by calling 11 states based on exit polls. That enabled the network to declare Ronald

Reagan president at 8:15 p.m., while ABC and CBS waited for more votes to be

counted. ‘‘ABC didn’t call the election until 10 minutes to 10, right before Jimmy Carter

made his concession speech,’’ says Mitofsky, who was then running CBS’ election

shop. ‘‘CBS didn’t call it until 10:20 p.m., after Carter made his concession speech.

That was my doing. Yeah, it was hard. I didn’t need any lessons in exit polling from

NBC. It bothered me that they were using them and we weren’t.’’ After 1980, each network conducted its own exit polls on a massive scale. But

costs mounted and network news executives, far more focused on the bottom line

than in the past, scrambled to save money. In 1990 they created Voter Research

Surveys to conduct exit polls, offer analysis and make projections for all networks.

Mitofsky was named to head the new operation. By joining forces, each network

would save $9 million over a four-year period, according to a report cited in David

W. Moore’s book, ‘‘The Superpollsters.’’ It also made VRS research affordable for

CNN.

Philip Meyer, a pioneer in what is sometimes called ‘‘precision journalism,’’ spoke

out against a network consortium at a 1991 meeting of the American Association

for Public Opinion Research, calling it ‘‘a bad idea.’’ If VRS makes a mistake, Meyer

said then, there could be ‘‘terrible consequences’’ because there would be no other

exit polls to serve as a counterweight. If VRS was wrong, he reasoned, everyone

would be wrong.

‘‘My concern then and now is when you share responsibility like that across news

organizations that normally compete, if everybody’s responsible, then nobody’s responsible,’’ says Meyer, who teaches journalism at the University of North Carolina.

‘‘When they were competing organizations in 1988, they gave different answers, and

that was embarrassing to the networks. The visible conflict is good because it reminds everybody how delicate these instruments are. Competition produces better

results.’’

In 1993, VRS and NES merged to create Voter News Service, an effort to save

even more money. Mitofsky left and Murray Edelman became editorial director. The

terrain shifted that November when ABC broke from the pack and surprised everyone by making its own calls ahead of VNS, albeit using VNS data.

Thus began the age where networks artificially compete, using identical information supplied simultaneously but reaching their own conclusions on their own timetable.

On Election Day, VNS, payroll, which includes about 30 permanent employees,

swells to about 45,000, including election year staff, data input operators in the Cincinnati area and New York City, exit poll interviewers and people who collect county

and precinct votes in each state and the District of Columbia.

In Florida, VNS-trained interviewers conducted scientific exit polls in 45 precincts

with 4,356 people after they voted and staffed 120 sample precincts and 67 county

election offices.

VNS ‘‘reporters’’ collect vote totals and phone them in to operators. Statisticians

at the World Trade Center crunch the numbers through a variety of statistical models based on historical and geographical voting patterns. Then the computer comes

up with a probability that statisticians use to project a winner.

151

Some critics say VNS models are outdated and not statistically sound. ‘‘I do think

we need a software update on giving estimates of probability that takes into account

changes in the country, especially on absentees,’’ says ABC analyst Achen. ‘‘What

we saw this year is a sign that there’s work to do.’’ CBS analyst Lenski agrees VNS

models ‘‘need to be adjusted to fully account for the intricacies of absentees and

early voters.’’

‘‘I’m one of the people who understands statistical models,’’ says analyst Achen.

‘‘On election night, I can sit there as could other people on the team, and say, ‘The

computer is saying this, but the way the model works, that’s not very trustworthy,’

and that’s what they hired us to do. The model makes certain assumptions that are

true most of the time, but not always. The machine can say it’s 99 percent likely

and it really is, or it says it’s 99 percent likely and that’s not true. That’s what happened at 8 with the Gore call.’’

Once a race is called, network election analysts put it aside and turn to other contests. Too much is happening to double-check a called race. Yet that’s just what

Goldstein did 15 minutes after ABC awarded Florida to Gore. Raw votes from Florida’s 67 counties were pushing Bush ahead.

Goldstein happened to be watching the Florida Senate race screen when results

from Duval County in the Jacksonville area came in. The data was odd. It showed

Republican Rep. Bill McCollum gaining on Democrat Bill Nelson in the race for the

Senate. Goldstein switched to the presidential screen. Gore was surging.

‘‘That didn’t make sense,’’ says Goldstein. ‘‘A Republican closed the gap in the

Senate and a Democrat widens in the presidential race. That tells you there’s a serious problem. People don’t vote like that.’’

CBS and CNN analysts Mitofsky and Lenski lost confidence in their Florida projection at about 9:15 p.m. ‘‘After we made the call, I was fine with it for the next

hour,’’ recalls Mitofsky. ‘‘Then it started getting suspicious.’’

Their decision screens showed numbers that didn’t jibe for the northern Florida

region. ‘‘We looked at all the counties in north Florida and saw Gore was getting

98 percent in Duval and Bush only getting 2 percent,’’ says Lenski, executive vice

president of Edison Media Research. ‘‘We called Murray.’’

At 9:07 p.m., a VNS operator had accidentally added an extra digit, pushing

Gore’s total in Duval County to 43,023 instead of the actual number, 4,302. The mistake was corrected by 9:38 p.m.

At 9:54 p.m., after watching the suspicious numbers for almost 45 minutes, CBS

stripped Gore of his win and sent the race into the undecided column.

At 10:16 p.m., VNS sent a message to its members and 100 TV, radio and newspaper subscribers: ‘‘WE’RE RETRACTING OUR CALL IN FL BECAUSE WE

DON’T HAVE OUR PREVIOUS CONFIDENCE.’’ By then, everyone but NBC had

already pulled Florida back.

‘‘After VNS deleted the bad data,’’ says Lenski, who’s worked every election for

CBS or VNS since 1988, ‘‘we realized it was dead even.’’ They advised CBS polling

chief Kathleen A. Frankovic to take Florida from Gore.

Word traveled from CBS News Executive Producer Al Ortiz into Dan Rather’s earpiece. ‘‘Bulletin,’’ sputtered Rather. ‘‘Florida pulled back into the undecided column.

Computer and data problem. One of the CBS News election night headlines of the

hour. This knock-down-drag-out battle drags on into the night, and turn the lights

down, the party just got wilder.’’

Mitofsky hasn’t made many wrong calls in 33 years. ‘‘They are embarrassing,’’ he

admits. ‘‘I’m chagrined by them. But if you’re wrong, you’re wrong.’’

But he had company: Everyone using VNS data had jumped the gun. It may have

been a tad more embarrassing, though, for Mitofsky, since Rather had earlier assured viewers that they had settled on the reliable channel.

‘‘Let’s get one thing straight right from the get-go,’’ said Rather at 7 p.m. ‘‘We

would rather be last in reporting a return than to be wrong. And again, our record

demonstrates that to be true. If you hear someplace else that somebody’s carried a

state and if you are off, as you shouldn’t be, watching them, then come back here

because if we say somebody’s carried a state, you can pretty much take it to the

bank, book it, that that’s true.’’

Fifty minutes later, the promise wasn’t worth much.

So what, exactly, had gone wrong?

The bad Gore call was not because of flaws in the exit polls or a data entry error,

despite dozens of inaccurate media reports to that effect. Experts agree there was

no bias in the exit polls, as there had been in New Hampshire. And the Duval County mistake, made an hour after the Gore call, played no part in the blunder, VNS

Editorial Director Murray Edelman explained in a confidential November 14 memo

to members.

152

Nor were other errors to blame, such as one made by a VNS staffer who inaccurately recorded figures for Lake County at 9:01 p.m. and again at 10:47 p.m., coming up with totals larger than was possible. By 11:59 p.m., the errors were corrected.

Nor was it due to a VNS operator shortchanging Gore by 4,000 votes in Brevard

County, punching in 93,318 instead of 97,318 at 10:13 p.m., though that error may

have played a role later in the evening since it wasn’t corrected until 3:51 a.m, according to a VNS memo. ‘‘I still believe the biggest problem in the model is that we did not correctly anticipate the impact of the absentee vote,’’ Edelman wrote in the memo.

Edelman declined to be interviewed by AJR for this article. The network consortium will not allow any VNS employees to speak to the media about what happened

on election night. And network officials also will not discuss the situation, beyond

saying that they are investigating what went wrong.

University of Wisconsin political scientist Ken Goldstein is not surprised that absentee ballots played a key role in a bum call. Exit polls, while painting a portrait

of Florida voters who cast ballots at precincts, tell analysts nothing about absentee

voters. ‘‘One of the things you are looking for in a close race is you want to be sure

you know what’s been going on with the absentee ballots and that you are counting

them properly,’’ says ABC election analyst Paul Freedman.

But Goldstein and others say Edelman was cognizant of the absentee factor going

in.‘‘If you don’t include absentee votes in your model, you are going to be off,’’ says

Goldstein. ‘‘Everyone knew that Florida is 10 percent absentee and has always been.

We got memos ahead of time that said, ‘Don’t forget about absentee.’ Murray produced a lot of paper before the election on absentee voters. We had Excel spreadsheets on absentees, plus we had reports for each state on absentee history. Yeah,

the absentees could be the explanation, but you knew about that.’’ Academics, statisticians and news people working election night know uncertainty

goes hand-in-hand with predictions. They expect and try to compensate for bad data

or human error. Making projections is a science. But it is not foolproof.

What does ABC do when everyone else has picked a winner and ABC hasn’t? ‘‘There’s got to be social pressure,’’ says the University of North Carolina’s Meyer. ‘‘Who wants to watch an anchor who doesn’t know who won when everybody else

says they know?’’ Says Freedman, ‘‘As long as the context is calling the winner first, you are going

to see built-in incentives to be a little risky.’’ Given the intensely competitive environment, it’s reasonable ‘‘to expect that people will make decisions with competition

in mind and not simply with the data in mind,’’ he adds. ‘‘It’s inevitable. It’s built

into the way the networks structure election night.’’ But why are the networks in the projection business at all? who cares which network is first? Most people merely want accurate results. many critics among them

election expert Curtis Gans argue the networks do democracy a disservice by declaring a winner before the final results are in. ‘‘In almost every election there’s this

rush to judgment,’’ says Gans, vice president and director of the Committee for the

Study of the American Electorate, ‘‘and there’s something inaccurate reported. Networks are creating the news by projecting winners, not reporting it. No data is as

accurate as tabulated results.’’

A poll by the Pew Research Center For The People & The Press reported nine

days after the election that 87 percent of the American people want the networks

to stop predicting winners before the votes have been tallied. ‘‘There are a lot of people out there who are fed up with the networks,’’ Gans says.

What happened in the wee hours of the morning after changed perhaps forever,

but certainly for many years to come how much Americans trust television networks. What will they believe in 2004 when a network projects a winner in Florida?

‘‘What everybody is going to remember is not the campaign coverage but the election night coverage,’’ says S. Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and

Public Affairs. ‘‘So even if we could give [the networks] a brilliant grade, I think

it would be a little like saying that the Titanic was doing just fine except for the

iceberg.’’

Almost 41 million households were tuned to the four major broadcast networks

and three cable news channels on election night, according to Nielsen Media Research. No waiting for tomorrow’s paper. No competing to get on a crowded Web

site. And TV graphics beat radio. Turn on the TV and Jennings and Rather and

Tom Brokaw and the cable guys are there for reliable updates,

Reliable?

By 1 a.m., it was clear that whoever carried Florida would move into the White

House in January 2001. As predicted, election night 2000 had been a wild ride.

153

Now, all that had to happen was for someone to win Florida. Then all of those viewers struggling to keep their eyes open could finally go to bed.

At 1:30 a.m., everyone staring at election data screens at the networks, at the AP,

at VNS was jumpy. Ninety-five percent of Florida’s precincts had been tabulated,

according to VNS, and there was still no clear winner. At 1:30 a.m., Bush had about

a 60,000-vote lead, says AP Florida Bureau Chief Kevin Walsh. But how many votes

were out? Where were they concentrated?

At 1:52 a.m., Walsh’s figures showed the lead shrinking to 56,000 Bush. ‘‘It was

very intense,’’ recalls Walsh. ‘‘We were getting calls here and in Tallahassee from

editors all over the country wondering if we were going to call the race, or looking

for guidance.’’

At 2:10 a.m. in Fox’s New York studio, election analyst John Ellis, George W.

Bush’s first cousin, saw the same VNS data as those at the other networks. It indicated Bush held a 51,433-vote edge. Only 179,713 votes were outstanding, according

to VNS. (It would turn out that VNS had grossly underestimated that number. Instead, twice as many votes remained uncounted, according to a VNS post-election

memo.) To close the gap, Gore needed to win 63 percent of them. It seemed an impossible task. Ellis advised the network to call the state for his relative.

NBC decision desk head Sheldon Gawiser was worried, too. On the phone with

Edelman, Gawiser repeatedly asked why NBC couldn’t make the call. ‘‘When he

couldn’t give me any reason not to call the election,’’ says Gawiser, ‘‘then I told him

I was going to go ahead and take a look at it myself. And we then broke the connection.’’

Fox anchor Brit Hume declared George W. Bush winner of Florida’s 25 electoral

votes and crowned him the next president at 2:16 a.m. One after the other, the networks tumbled, like so many dominoes, CBS and NBC at 2:17 a.m., CNN at 2:18

a.m.

Before 2:00 a.m., the ABC decision desk asked Achen about making the call.

Again, he said it was too soon. The VNS model couldn’t assure him the absentee

votes had been counted, and he knew that at the end of a long night, errors in totals

were likely. But Achen says he didn’t lobby strenuously against the decision.

At 2:20 a.m. again last, ABC gave Florida and the election to Bush.

Ironically, VNS itself did not award the state. But CBS, and CNN’s Mitofsky says

with 97 percent of the vote reported, Bush leading by 50,000 and about 180,000

votes not yet tallied, he thought it was an easy call.

But the AP hesitated. At 2:16 a.m., with 99 percent of the state’s 5,884 precincts

in, Walsh’s count showed the Bush margin narrowing to 30,000 votes. ‘‘We didn’t

feel there was any way we could make that call,’’ says Sandy Johnson, AP’s Washington bureau chief and the one making final decisions on all of the races. ‘‘It just

wasn’t there.’’

As CNN anchor Bernard Shaw declared Bush the winner at 2:18 a.m., Republican

operatives projected Shaw on a drive-in movie-size screen outside of the Texas State

Capitol. The Republican crowd in Austin erupted in cheers. In Nashville, Gore supporters standing in the rain had another reason to feel glum. Soon, they were told,

their man would arrive to give a concession speech.

CBS’ Rather was awash in Ratherisms. ‘‘Let’s give a tip of the Stetson to the

loser, Vice President Al Gore, and at the same time, a big tip and a hip, hip, hurrah

and a great big Texas howdy to the new president of the United States. Sip it. Savor

it. Cup it. Photostat it. Underline it in red. Press it in a book. Put it in an album.

Hang it on the wall. George Bush is the next president of the United States.’’

CBS’ screen flashed: ‘‘Bush elected president.’’

Rather and CBS stars Ed Bradley, Lesley Stahl and Bob Schieffer began speculating on why Gore lost, what he would do next, whether he could have run a better

race.

Still the AP remained silent.

Across the country, newspapers were bumping up against their final deadlines.

Editors were edgy. Dozens of the AP’s 1,500 daily newspaper members began calling

New York, Washington, Miami. Why hasn’t the AP called the race? In New York

City, the AP’s president and CEO, Louis D. Boccardi, called his D.C. team at 2:30

a.m. He, too, wanted to know what was going on. So did Executive Editor Wolman,

who was in D.C., although Bureau Chief Johnson was honchoing election coverage.

‘‘I had to wonder if there was an overabundance of caution because of the bad Gore

call,’’ Wolman says.

Yes, the AP team was wary. It couldn’t afford to blow it, not with all of those

newspapers depending on it. But Johnson had confidence in an invaluable tool the

AP had that the networks didn’t: a backup system. Long before the AP joined VNS

in 1990, it had cobbled together its own network for gathering election results.

154

‘‘We count the vote in every state,’’ says Tom Jory, the AP’s liaison to VNS. ‘‘We

count the same national races VNS counts as an independent backup to VNS and

use VNS to edit-check our report. We often use VNS as a primary source, but we

weren’t using VNS in Florida.’’

Like VNS, the AP hires freelancers to gather vote counts. The freelancers are

strongly encouraged during dress rehearsals the weekend before election night to

call bureaus early and often. ‘‘As a result,’’ says Walsh, ‘‘we were consistently out

front of VNS and out front of the Florida secretary of state’s Web site.’’

When VNS models showed Bush’s lead jump from 29,386 at 2:05 a.m. to 51,433

five minutes later, network analysts thought the race was over. But AP’s count was

radically different. It showed that Bush’s lead at 1:47 a.m. was 56,486. By 2:16, it

had plummeted to 30,513.

The AP decided it wasn’t ready to call the race. At about 2:30 a.m., seeking reassurance, AP decision editors in D.C. summoned Will Lester, who for 11 years had

participated in the wire service’s coverage of Florida elections as a writer and an

editor.

‘‘You didn’t have to sit down and do fancy math to figure out that if Gore could

win a substantial share of the outstanding votes, it was clear that the margin Bush

had could evaporate,’’ says Lester, the AP’s poll writer. ‘‘Broward and Palm Beach

are big metropolitan counties. Those counties coming in late definitely could wipe

out a Republican lead.’’

‘‘Can we call it?’’ Johnson asked Lester. ‘‘We need to know when we can call it.’’

Lester eyed the data again. ‘‘You can’t do it,’’ he responded. At 2:30 a.m., as Rather

deconstructed Gore’s downfall, the AP’s numbers showed Bush’s edge dropping to

19,000.

Wolman was feeling enormous pressure. ‘‘After the celebration started in Austin,’’

says the AP executive, ‘‘we spent all our time crashing numbers on calculators, trying to understand whether the race was over or was it possible for the Democrats

to catch up?’’

At 2:37 a.m., Johnson and others concluded Gore could pull it out. The wire service issued an urgent update, cautioning that while the networks were calling the

race, there was ‘‘the narrowest of margins’’ between the candidates with votes still

being tallied.

But everyone at the AP’s Washington bureau was extremely nervous. ‘‘You have

the weight of the other VNS members making the call,’’ says Wolman. ‘‘By that time

newspaper Web sites were printing ‘Bush Wins.’ Gore had conceded to Bush. There

was doom and gloom in Nashville. We felt extremely lonely. We were thinking,

‘Florida’s the whole ball game. Don’t blow it.’ ’’

Many were thinking the same thing. ‘‘That would be something if the networks

blow it twice in one night,’’ said NBC’s Tom Brokaw less than an hour before the

network took Florida away from Bush at 4:00 a.m.

They did.

Could the debacle have been avoided if the networks had subscribed to the AP’s

special election-night wire, which flashed vote totals up to 12 times an hour, as

much as four times as frequently as the main wire? None of them did.

‘‘I wish we had,’’ Lenski says. ‘‘At 3 a.m., we went into Yahoo! to find AP vote

totals.’’

Some network analysts explain the second blunder by blaming a computer glitch

in one machine in one tiny precinct in Volusia County, which includes Daytona

Beach.

In precinct 216 in DeLand, election workers began having trouble with one voting

machine shortly before the polls closed. After 7 p.m., a poll worker drove the malfunctioning laptop-size machine to the Department of Elections to see if someone

could get it to work.

‘‘We would have had to remove the memory card and upload it ourselves, which

is what we did at 10:02 p.m.,’’ recalls Denise Hansen, the department’s assistant

supervisor.

Within 15 minutes, she says, the county attorney called. He’d been watching results stream in on a screen in the county’s council chambers. Gore’s vote was going

backwards!

By 10:30 p.m., the county knew there was an error. But where? Officials tried for

hours to track down the AccuVote machine vendor in Texas. After running a precinct-by-precinct printout at 1:24 a.m., the error jumped out. ‘‘You don’t see a negative 16,000 votes for anybody,’’ says Hansen. Not to mention a five-digit vote in a

precinct with 585 registered voters only 219 of whom had voted.

When VNS entered the Volusia glitch at 2:08 a.m., Gore’s count in the county

dropped from 82,619 to 72,152. The problem should have been caught by a VNS opVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
155

erator. Its computers flag anomalies, alerting operators to potential data problems

that need to be checked.

‘‘When there’s a big decrease in a candidate’s vote of 10,000, it has to be approved

by a manager at VNS,’’ says Lenski. He adds that if they’d received ‘‘weird data’’

from Volusia, they would have taken a close look at the county’s totals.

Says the AP’s Walsh, ‘‘I think everyone was affected by that erroneous data. However, our vote totals in all the counties were far ahead enough of VNS, that it affected us less. We were recording votes so fast in the Miami bureau that the Volusia

problem did not have as dramatic an impact on the overall Bush margin for us as

it did for VNS.’’

AP didn’t notify VNS because while it could tell something was wrong in Volusia,

‘‘we had no idea what the specific vote drop was,’’ Walsh says.

What looked like a 56,000-vote Bush lead according to VNS was probably more

like 30,000, says CBS’ Mitofsky. ‘‘Now we always expected his lead to close up somewhat, because the missing votes were in Democratic areas. We certainly didn’t think

there were more than 180,000 votes out. If we had known that there were as many

as 360,000 votes out, as we do now, we never would have made a projection.’’ It’s

not clear what caused that miscalculation.

At 2:30 a.m., the AP’s count gave Bush a 19,000-vote margin while VNS, margin

was almost twice that. To the AP, with votes in Democratic strongholds outstanding,

it appeared Gore could pull ahead. To those eyeing VNS data, Gore didn’t stand a

chance.

At 3:11 a.m., the AP sent out a cautionary advisory. Bush’s lead had dwindled

to 6,000.

On CBS, Ed Bradley was holding up the AP report. Rather turned and Bradley

said slowly, ‘‘The Associated Press believes that the uncounted votes in Broward and

Palm Beach counties could allow a change of the lead in the Florida vote.’’ There

was laughter, groaning, amazement on the set. ‘‘Hello, 911? Cardiac arrest unit

please,’’ said Rather, pretending to make a phone call. Bob Schieffer covered his face

in disbelief.

Rather recovered. ‘‘Let’s not joke about it folks,’’ he advised. ‘‘You have known all

night long and we’ve said to you all night long that these estimates of who wins

and who loses are based on the best available information we have. CBS News has

the best track record in the business, over a half century plus, for accuracy on election night. But nobody’s perfect.’’

Congress is holding hearings on the election night fiasco. Networks are hiring outside consultants to study the VNS system. Already, ABC, NBC and Fox have promised they won’t call a state until all of its polls have closed. The networks are once

again lobbying for a uniform poll-closing time. ABC has announced it will no longer

allow television sets in decision desk rooms. Critics are beseeching the networks to

stop projecting winners based on exit polls or sample precincts.

After all of the investigations are over, and Congress has studied the misfire into

oblivion, and network executives have pounded their chests with mea culpas, and

anchors have promised to never, ever project winners in tight races, and television

sets are forever banned from election night decision rooms, the best solution may

be simply to force everyone involved to repeat this mantra 100 times:

‘‘It’s not an off-year dog catcher race in North Dakota.’’

Mr. BUYER. I would like to ask each of the networks about this

issue of acceptable levels of risk, and whether you agree with Dr.

Edelman’s comments on that; and second, as you are doing your review, whether you’re going to keep the present setup that you have

about the decision desk and how you make those decisions.

I can almost see it. All these people at the different decision

desks at the networks know each other, right? Some are friends,

some are colleagues, some aren’t friends, but they know each other,

and they’re all competitive, and they’ve been that way for decades.

I can almost see the camaraderie. I can’t believe so and so made

that call. He’s going to fall on his face. I’ll bet you 10 bucks. I can

see that stuff going back and forth through the night. Everyone

wants to get ahead of the other. And they lay the networks credibility on the line in something that is a big game to them. But they

also want to be right because they want to be hired back.

156

But I’m curious about whether you’re doing internal reviews on

whether you restructure that desk or not. So the two questions are

do you agree with the doctor’s assessment about that level of risk;

and second, are you going to be restructuring the decisionmaking

desk to be more accurate?

Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Congressman, I’d like to say first that I take

strong exception to your comments, to your jokes about CNN. I see

we live in a word where jokes are made, Members of Congress,

even the President, and I think both the Pew study and the NBC/

Wall Street Journal study showing CNN to be the most trusted

network is something that we take great pride in.

Mr. BUYER. Was that a paid advertisement? That was for free,

wasn’t it?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think everybody has said today that we are determined to make certain that we take the steps that are necessary

to assure that our future conduct on election night is as solid, as

credible as we know how to make it. That cuts across no matter

what area here we may represent in terms of where all the networks stand on a political spectrum.

Mr. BUYER. You will continue to team with CBS on how you do

your decisions at the desk?

Mr. JOHNSON. We may, or we may not. We have not made that

decision. We have tremendous respect for CBS. We also have great

respect for the other news organizations here. I think you’ll find

that each of us does our job in the way we think best serves the

public.

Mr. BUYER. Did you agree with Dr. Edelman’s assessments on

the issues on risk?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think that we want to take no risk that that

risks our credibility.

Mr. BUYER. That’s fair.

Chairman, would you permit each of them to answer the question?

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired, but our

rule is if you would like to answer, you certainly can.

Mr. LACK. There is no acceptable risk to be wrong. You don’t

want to go out there and report something that just might be

wrong.

I think it’s important to point out it hasn’t been mentioned in

this discussion today that 75 percent of the races are not close at

all, and there isn’t any risk involved. Then you get down to that

last 25 percent, you’re starting to ask yourself, what’s the risk

here?

I think the answer is we don’t want to take any risk calling a

State where we’re wrong.

I guess the gentleman representing VNS today Mr. Savaglio

pointed out that they have been right 99.8 percent of the time, but

they blew a doozy, and that’s not acceptable to any of us. We’re not

going to take the risk that that is going to happen again.

With respect to the way NBC News is going to look at its decision desk, we are going to take a look at it. I don’t know what or

how it’s going to reconfigure itself between 2000 and 2004, but

we’re not going to play with a pat hand. We’re going to tear it

157

apart and tear up the rug and start all over again and see if we’ve

got the right people in the right places doing the right things.

Mr. BUYER. Thank you.

Mr. Lack.

Mr. AILES. I think as far as the desk at Fox is concerned, I am

certain that we will review that between now and when we have

another election. What we will keep, however, is that we had a situation where every single person on that desk had to give a yes

vote before it went to air, and then it when through a vice president, senior vice president for the network, who recanvassed the

floor and said, are you sure of this, should we make this decision.

So we had a unanimous desk. The last thing I said to the people

at 5:30 that evening after a briefing was nobody will get fired here

for being late. I don’t care if you call every single race last. I want

you to be fair, and I want you to be as accurate as you can be. That

was my instruction at 5:30 to 35 of our journalists who were meeting in a conference room.

And I think that there is this competition and so on, but I do

think the idea of having everybody in the room agree it’s time to

go is helpful.

Mr. BUYER. Thank you.

Chairman TAUZIN. Mr. Heyward.

Mr. HEYWARD. Very briefly. We already said in our report that

we’re going to toughen up the oversight of the decision desk. We

have already announced some change. We’re going to have a new

executive who over sees it and will serve as a potential check or

balance on decisions that might be premature, let’s say. But, you

know, in terms of the risk, again, I think one of things we haven’t

really said much at this hearing, the penalty for us for a mistake

is extremely severe. I think that also speaks to some of the concerns about perceived bias, or, you know, I think one of the themes

of election night is just waiting until you can be sure to get it right.

And clearly we have to rely on some better models than the ones

we’ve had.

The—our decisions are there for the world to see, and the penalty when we’re wrong, in addition to having the spend the day

here, which is fine, is that our credibility with our public is impaired, and ultimately our very business would be threatened. If

people couldn’t count on us to be accurate, we would be out of business. So we have a tremendous incentive independent of any of the

issues that’s being raised by you, Congressman Buyer, or any of

the other Members, tremendous incentive not to let this ever happen again, tremendous, built into the marketplace.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Westin?

Mr. WESTIN. Yes, sir. On the two questions, first acceptable level

of risk, I said in my opening statement, and I’ve tried to reiterate,

that we at ABC News, as my colleagues do, do everything possible

to ensure the accuracy and the timeliness of what we report.

Now, I want to be honest with the committee, out of respect to

the committee. To manage for zero risk in journalism is not to be

a journalist; it is to be a historian. The only way to manage for zero

risk, as we learned in this last election, the Presidential election,

is wait until after the electoral college has finally voted. So we are

going to do everything we can.

158

The problem we had here was there were risks in this system we

were not aware of. We thought we were managing for closer tolerance and risk than, in fact, we were, and that’s what we have to

fix and get rid of.

On restructuring the desk, we said 2 weeks after the election, we

want to remove as much as is feasible our decision desk from some

of the pressures of watching monitors and see other people who can

do it other ways, but it is human nature that when you are seeing

everyone else with graphics up announcing the 43rd President of

the United States, that you start to think maybe you should get

moving.

That’s a fundamental change that we are going to make. But I

also have to just come back on the end on the allegation of bias,

of political bias. You don’t know the political affiliation of anybody

working on a decision desk because I don’t know, and if I did know,

they wouldn’t be working on my decision desk.

It is a policy at ABC News, you do not take a political position.

Now, you may have it in the privacy of your home, you may vote

it, but you better not express it in any way that I know about it.

And that’s why you don’t see it.

It is, frankly, unfair to the men and women that I work with to

suggest that they come into the office every day and bandy about

their political views, because it is simply not the way it works. We

may get it wrong, and we do, and we get called to task for it, as

we should, but these are hard-working, dedicated men and women

who are trying to get it right the best they can.

Mr. BOCCARDI. I would like to make the same point about the

people who work for me. I don’t know their politics, and I don’t care

about it, but on this question of risk, philosophically David is right,

we don’t work in a zero risk business. But there are none of us who

would say, well, let’s make that call; there is a risk it’s wrong, but

let’s do it. We just don’t do that. When we make a mistake, we

make a mistake, as in the Florida early Gore call in Florida by us.

We felt that it was true.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair

will now recognize a gentleman who, believe it or not, has sat in

this chair and held longer hearings than I have, the gentleman

from Michigan Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

Gentlemen, you have been here a long time. I would note that

most everything that can be said has been said, but not everybody

has said it.

I would observe that the last few minutes of the hearing, I think,

have been very helpful.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to commend you for the way this hearing has been conducted.

I would note that CNN, Mr. Ailes has come forward with some

rather scathing criticism of their own performance, and they have

suggested a number of changes that they think they should make.

I note that others here have come forward with similar statements

about needs for changes.

First of all, what then, gentlemen, do we do so that we don’t

have another situation like this? It was, I think, pretty important

that we have fair, accurate reporting, reporting here that didn’t afVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
159

fect or impact one of the great and important elections in the history of this country.

Starting with you, Mr. Lack, what do we do about these matters?

Mr. LACK. Well, I think we have all generally agreed that we

need to reevaluate how VNS goes about collecting their data and

providing it for us on election night. So we need to retool, fix, use

whatever verb you like, to get VNS up to speed so that the mistakes that they did encounter on election night won’t occur again

in 2004.

In addition to that, we need all of us individually be satisfied

that our own organizations have backup systems and enough original reporting to help them evaluate the course of events as election

night unfolds.

Mr. DINGELL. Does that include the contract that you have with

your contractor to do certain work for all of the networks? Does

that need any work, additional expenditures?

Mr. LACK. I believe it will take additional expenditures, and NBC

and many of my distinguished colleagues here have also spoken

straightforwardly about that. It is going to take more money, and

we are going to pony up.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Ailes, what do you have to say to the question?

Mr. AILES. I think everybody on this panel is probably going to

pay very close attention to this personally. I think it will cost more

money. We all know that. I think we will be involved in frequent

meetings to try to solve this problem.

I think that beyond that we have an obligation to inform the

public a little better about the election; put disclaimers on the

screen about what they are seeing. If they are seeing something

and they could think it is something else, an exit poll is an exit

poll. It may or may not be accurate. You should never base your

vote on it.

I think we have to be careful about oversimplification of how to

win the race or not win the race. I think it has caused a real review of our process internally about information that we give to the

public to make their judgments.

Beyond that, I think there are a lot of things, a review of the

desks and so on and many of the suggestions, which I won’t go

back through here. We all came to pretty much the same conclusions, but it is clear we are all going to have to rebudget.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Johnson, what do you suggest? We have talked

about software and modeling and things of that kind. What are

your comments?

Mr. JOHNSON. First, that we fix VNS. Second, at least in our organization, that we get a second source of data to make projections.

Third, that we be very careful about the use of exit polls in the

close races. As we have suggested, I really believe that we will

withhold calls when the vote margin is extremely close, make it

clear we cannot make that call, and also, as we have recommended,

a uniform poll closing act.

Congressman, I also believe, though, as we have said earlier

today, that there is almost an equally important need for us to upgrade the technology throughout the United States. I mean, in an

era where we all can go to an ATM machine and reliably dial in

160

a code and take out money, we should all be able to go and reliably

be able to make sure that our votes count.

Mr. DINGELL. Sure can’t count on those punch card machines,

can you, or the butterfly ballots, either one?

Mr. JOHNSON. We need to change those soon.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Heyward.

Mr. HEYWARD. Congressman Dingell, rather than just restate our

list of recommendations, they are very similar to what my colleagues have said, I would just add that maybe as an overall theme

one benefit that the public will get out of this, in addition to, I

think, more reliable data and perhaps some commendable caution

when the races are close, is that the process will be demystified a

little bit. I think that the notion that there is something mysterious

about it is not a good thing, and I think the degree to which we

report on why we make calls, why we don’t make calls, the nature

of exit polling, the nature of our projections, how votes are going

in particular States and not try to have this air of omniscience will

be a good thing. I think that’s one of the lessons that comes out

of 2000 is that accuracy, clarity, directness with the viewers are

very important to us, and I think that the citizens will benefit from

that next time around.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Westin.

Mr. WESTIN. Four things. We need to redo VNS and put more

money and more resources into it, correct some of the errors that

we didn’t fully appreciate and know that were in there.

Second, we have to be open to other alternatives to VNS if they

will make our reporting more accurate and more timely. If those

are available, we should take advantage of them.

Third, uniform poll closing we have said we are in favor of, and

I wholeheartedly endorse what Mr. Heyward said. As I said earlier,

I personally look forward to a day when the technology is such that

we get an instantaneous and perfectly accurate count of the actual

vote, and we don’t have to make projections at all anymore. That

would be best for the country and ultimately best for the news divisions.

And finally, and I think as important as anything else, I think

that we as news divisions, and certainly speaking for ABC News,

need to have a bit more humility in our reporting. Now, that

doesn’t mean that we are less vigorous. I don’t think any of us

want a less vigorous press, but in our vigor we have to be explaining to our audience what we know and what we don’t know so that

they can then incorporate that and make use of that information

in a more constructive way.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Boccardi, you have expressed some distaste for

the hearing and some questions of pride of this kind of event. Why

don’t you tell us what you folks in the media need to do.

Mr. BOCCARDI. Well, I think a lot of good things have been said

in the last couple of minutes, and it may sound like an odd thing

for me to say at the end of a long day devoted to the problem of

the 2000 election, but we don’t think AP had a broken election. We

had one problem. It was the early Gore call, and it was made because of some faulty data we received from VNS, of which we are

one of the owners. So fixing VNS is an important part of what we

think needs to be done.

161

Mr. DINGELL. That includes software and money and modeling

and all that sort of thing; does it not?

Mr. BOCCARDI. Yes. It needs some or all of the above.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Edelman, do you have some comment?

Mr. BOCCARDI. Just say yes.

Mr. EDELMAN. Well, I agree with everything they have said, and

I look forward to having a much larger budget.

I would like to make a couple of comments, that the models that

you were evaluating in the earlier part, you were taking one number off of the screen and didn’t take into account that there was

a lot of other information available.

The issues of absentees and bias and stuff we have been studying

very seriously for these very many years. There was just not one

number fixed to put into the system, so I chose to give the information and make that available. So when you used that number and

then talked about the systematic bias and all of that, I think it is

quite misleading. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a lot of problems, and it doesn’t mean that we don’t have a lot of things to

make much better.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am over the time, but may I ask

Mr. Savaglio to comment on this?

Chairman TAUZIN. Of course, Mr. Dingell.

Proceed.

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Thank you, Congressman.

As we outlined in our statement, we have identified a series of

improvements in the system that include reworking the models,

using larger sample sizes and working to improve the accuracy of

the exit poll with regard to the response rate, and also the issue

of absentees. So I think that the process has given us a number

of things that we need to do that we know will make it better, particularly the things that were in the Research Triangle Institute report, which will help us have greater accuracy in the future.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Gentleman, thank you. I hope we don’t see you here after the

next Presidential election.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Dingell.

The gentleman, Mr. Walden is recognized.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First I want to thank our panelists for their internal analyses

and external as conducted. I thought they were very thorough, very

complete, had excellent recommendations.

Your decisions to withhold the numbers until all the polls have

closed in the State is appreciated, especially for somebody from the

West.

I am sorry and disappointed that some of you seem to be offended at having to come here today and testify on these issues.

Mr. Boccardi, maybe you won’t take offense to this, but I have been

a dues-paying AP co-op member for 15 years in my business, so

maybe you can look at me in that respect.

Mr. BOCCARDI. That would never offend me.

Mr. WALDEN. Good. I will keep paying the dues.

But I think the issue for me is that at the end of the day we have

the closest election in decades. The outcome exposed serious flaws

in the election process as elections are conducted, we have heard

162

a lot of different issues today, and how those elections get covered

through the VNS formula model and the problems there.

The States don’t like us prying into how they run elections, as

they are guaranteed the opportunity under the Constitution, any

more than you like us prying into how you cover those elections.

But not once today have I heard of any legislative intent to influence VNS through legislation or to undermine in any way your first

amendment rights to conduct the election.

Gentlemen, what we run into, as we go home to our district, are

constituents who never have access to people like you to ask the

questions we are asking today. So, please, don’t take offense to

being here and sharing the answers, because I think, frankly, the

answers you have shared are very valuable to your own credibility

as well as our own. So I think that it is important to have these

oversight hearings to get to the bottom of the issue. I think in the

end it will strengthen the first amendment, frankly.

I do have a question, Dr. Edelman, referring to your testimony,

your report, with all members—if I could read from it, Mr. Chairman—with all members using the same data, one would expect

that all members would call a given race fairly close to the same

time, say within a few minutes of each other. However, an analysis

of the calls in this election reveals gaps of as much as an hour between the times the same race was called.

It is very unlikely that a difference of that amount of time could

exist between calls unless some members are assuming a much

larger level of risk than others. If the first member who calls a race

makes the call with some insight into the data, that insight becomes immediately transparent to the other members as soon as

the call is made, and if the level of risk is acceptable, the other

members would quickly follow suit. It would appear that calls are

being made at the minimum acceptable tolerances for risk, with

very little allowance for error.

Can you explain further what you meant by that statement, Dr.

Edelman?

Mr. EDELMAN. Yes, sure. If a member calls a race at 8, and another one calls it at 9, the one at 9 has a lot more information than

the one at 8. So that member at 9 is taking less of a risk when

they are doing it.

However, a member at 8 is making their determination based on

all of the information that they have at that time, and they could

easily perceive this as a very safe thing. So I made that statement—so that doesn’t necessarily mean that that person, that

member at 8, is taking a bigger—not aware that they are taking

a bigger risk. It is only in retrospect that they might be. And I

made that statement to point out that we should look at those gaps

in time to see if it is based on more information that someone has

or a different interpretation of the data.

Mr. WALDEN. And as you analyzed the various calls that were

made and the times they were made, I am assuming you did that,

is that correct, a postelection analysis; did you look at when the different networks made the different calls?

Mr. EDELMAN. No, I didn’t really do that. I had my hands full,

as you may have noticed.

Mr. WALDEN. Okay. Haven’t we all. Thank you.

163

I have one other question for VNS. It seemed to me, going into

this Election Day, there was this agreement not to—among the networks not to reveal the results of the data prior to polls closing.

But wasn’t there an Internet company that—it may be a subscriber

to VNS—that said, we are going to ignore that agreement?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. No. There had been some issues with Internet organizations through the primaries where some of the early—what

were reported to be early numbers were published on the Internet,

but there was no source available on the Internet of the VNS data.

Mr. WALDEN. Okay. So nobody in general got access, no member—could a member have—do members have access to the initial

wave data?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. The system goes up to the members in the afternoon, yes.

Mr. WALDEN. And while you have agreement among the networks here not to release the data ahead of any poll—well, before

the polls have all closed in a given State, do you have that same

agreement with the other recipients of the data?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Yes. It is in the subscriber contract that they have

to abide by the same regulations.

Mr. WALDEN. And what is the penalty if they do not?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Well, there are penalties, I believe, in the contracts, financial penalties.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. All right.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Just for the record, are the two political parties subscribers to

VNS? I think they are.

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Not during the day. There is a—I am told here

that the Republican Party buys the tabulated vote once the tabulated vote starts coming in.

Chairman TAUZIN. Once the tabs come out?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. Yes.

Chairman TAUZIN. They are not subscribers to the exit polls?

Mr. SAVAGLIO. No.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentlemen Mr. Bass is recognized.

Mr. BASS. No questions.

Chairman TAUZIN. Mr. Shadegg.

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, or at

least I will try to be brief.

First of all, I thank you for your time here today. I also want to

thank you for the reviews you have each done. I think they do reflect a desire on your part to be responsive to the concerns of the

American people, and I would echo my colleague Mr. Walden’s comments about the fact that we do have an obligation to our constituents who don’t get to talk to you and perhaps but for this hearing

wouldn’t know of the efforts you have made to examine what went

wrong.

This is a very troubling issue for me. I am—for a number of

years in my life, I was an election law attorney. I specialized in the

Voting Rights Act. I advised the Arizona Secretary of State on election law matters, handled automatic recounts and other recounts

in a State which was using punch card balloting. So I have been

fascinated with this whole issue.

164

I am, however, a rabid proponent of the first amendment and

have never thought there was an easy solution to this problem, and

I still don’t think there is an easy solution to this problem. A part

of me is concerned about the efforts you make to make an early

call, in fact affecting elections. And since I report Arizona, a west

coast State, there is a part of me that is deeply concerned about

that, and I think, in fact, there is evidence that it does affect voting.

Indeed, you received a letter, I believe, signed by all 50 Secretaries of State back in 1998 reflecting their requests that you not

report or that you not call elections in advance of the closing of the

polls on the west coast. While I sympathize with that request on

their part, there is a part of me that says it is unreasonable to ask

you to do that. I think the only solution to that problem is a uniform closing time, and I commend the chairman for his efforts in

that regard.

I simply think you cannot ask people to voluntarily restrain

when you are in the business you are in and people have a different expectation, but I think the uniform closing time will do a

great deal of good, and I commend those of you, and I guess it is

almost everybody, if not everybody, who has said here today that

you support that effort.

I do have a serious problem with calling an election before the

polls close in a State; for example, what happened in Florida this

year. And it kind of mystifies me why networks would call Florida

8, 10, 11 minutes before the Florida polls closed, because that

truly, I think, can affect the results, and I, quite frankly—if we

cannot accomplish a uniformed poll closing statute, I would favor

a statute that at least prohibits you from calling a State before the

polls in that State close, because I do see that as a serious problem.

In this election I think that it is certainly possible that voters in

the Panhandle of Florida, many of whom are military personnel,

many of whom are solely interested in the national election, the

Presidential election, could have been en route to the polls, heard

that multiple networks had called the race in Florida and said to

themselves, there is no need for me to go. And while I tend not to

sympathize with voters who choose not to go for whatever reason,

I think that it still creates a disincentive, which is a problem for

democracy. As you know, we don’t have enough Americans, a large

enough proportion of our population, voting in our elections to

begin with, and so disincentives, I think, are a serious problem.

I was here much earlier in the day when I heard my colleague

Mr. Stupak say that, and this is a direct quote because I wrote it

down at the time, nothing the networks do influenced the outcome

of this election. I disagree with that. I don’t think he can prove that

proposition. Indeed, I think that it is pretty clear that—it certainly

is possible that some of the things that were done in this election

did influence the outcome of the election, and I certainly don’t believe you can prove Mr. Stupak’s claim. But hopefully we get to the

point with a uniform poll closing time where that’s not an issue.

What I do want to express a little bit of concern about is that

in my State of Arizona now almost one-third of all voters early

vote. I have heard just now in the last few minutes several references to absentee voting. On election night, as I was being interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
165

viewed in Arizona about what was going on, I said, and I believe,

that exit polling is a fatally flawed practice which can no longer be

justified because of early voting. I am skeptical of your ability to

adjust the formulas and to take into consideration the reality not

of absentee voting—under Arizona law, you used to have to have

a reason for absentee voting. Today you simply say it is more convenient to me to vote absentee, and you vote by absentee, and Arizona is 30 percent. Other States, I think, are even higher, and I

think those numbers are going to grow.

I am interested in how it is that you propose to, in a fair fashion,

continue to use exit polling when a third or more of the population,

at least of my State, is going to cast an early ballot. And I would

appreciate your comments, any of you that have them, on that

topic.

Chairman TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired, but you

are free to comment anyway.

Mr. BOCCARDI. VNS may want to say something about the question on polling, but I would like to pick up on one of the many

points you made. As an example of the concern I expressed in my

remarks about the first amendment, as you skipped through some

of your perspective here, one of the things I think you said was

that you support legislation that would ban us from reporting before a poll closed, and that’s an example to me where your legislative mandate and our first amendment rights would conflict pretty

directly.

Mr. LACK. I think we have already quite clearly volunteered that

we are not going to do that, and I think all of us collectively came,

if not in minutes, hours, and if not hours, days, that we were going

to do that.

It was wrong, even though there was an agreement in place

which I think the chairman has referred to that the networks were

going to limit themselves from calling—or projecting a winner in a

State before most of or the majority of the polls had closed, but

that, it seems to me, is a fig leaf. We ought to get rid of it and just

said no, no more projections before the polls have closed. So you

don’t—I mean, I agree with Lou’s point about the legislative aspect

of it, but you don’t need to.

I think your skepticism with respect to the use of exit polling and

the early voting and how that’s going to impact exit polling is a

very good one, and we are going to be looking at that very carefully, and VNS has got a very long bridge to cross with us to assure

us that we have dealt with that issue correctly as we face 2004.

Mr. SAVAGLIO. The only thing I wanted to say about early voting

is that the way the early votes are counted vary from State to

State, and there are some aspects of it that allow you to get information about it, how many people have returned their ballots; the

counties count them, and prepare them for tabulation, and release

them right at poll closing. So they are not as unknowable, and obviously as it becomes—as it grows, hopefully those kinds of things

that are helpful will continue.

Mr. SHADEGG. If I could make a very quick comment. It seems

to me there are two issues there. One is at least in Arizona you

can find out on Election Day who has early voted or at least who

166

got an early ballot to vote, and you could perhaps contact them to

adjust your sample to reflect their views.

The other thing you could do, and this is an issue where Congress might step in, is that Congress might say if a State is going

to allow early voting, it has got to dump in the results or announce

the results of the early voting at a specific time. Either it has got

to be the first result announced, or it has got to be the last result

announced, but it has got to be announced in a fashion where you

can look at the returns that come in and factor in what happened

in the early voting to combine that with what your exit polling

showed to give you an accurate projection of what actually happened.

Right now the States do that differently. In Arizona most early

ballots are dumped in right at the outset. They are the first votes

in. If you knew that, and you could look at those results, you might

be able to perfect your projection by saying, okay, the first—we

could even say States have to report, must report, their early ballots as the first thing they report and identify that that is what

they are. Then you could look at how those results came out, factor

them into your exit polling, and have an accurate projection. But

it means to me it is a problem you have to deal with, and I appreciate the comments made here today.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired,

and all time has expired.

Happy Valentine’s Day, for real this time.

Let me again thank you, and just a comment, and then we will

get out of here.

First of all, I hope you did not think this was a penalty because

you know Election Day was a mess. This was not about penalty.

It wasn’t about punishing or piling on or criticizing. Your own selfcriticism was more than, believe me, anyone else in the country

probably would have leveled here today.

Second, you know, I don’t have to tell you, we make errors on

this side of the estate. Generally, when we make them, it is because we have bad information, too, and we have to be big enough

to say that when we do. I will never forget a vote I cast on a bill

called SALVO which had to do with reporting emissions, and I

thought the information we had was that it was overbureaucratic,

overburdensome, wouldn’t do the job. I have to tell you, it was a

bad vote, but it has been a good act. It has cleaned up more emissions in my State than any other single tool we have ever used in

the petrochemical industry, and I am proud to tell you that I admit

I was wrong, and we all do that. You did that today, and I think

the American people appreciate that, frankly.

More importantly, I hope you have not felt you were here under

duress. You came here voluntarily. You know that. I asked you to

come. You came. I appreciate it, and I will give you one commitment in return. I will fight to the death to protect your right to

keep doing this wrong if you really want to do it wrong. That’s the

truth. I will not—no longer not support, I will fight vigorously any

attempt to legislate in the area of your content. That is wrong for

us to even talk about doing. We won’t do it.

On the other hand, I know you know our responsibility was to

make an inquiry about how we could make this system work betVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
167

ter; what we might do and what you were willing to do voluntarily,

and I appreciate not only the self-inquiry that you literally undertook, but the fact that you were willing to come all day and spend

this time with us so that Americans could learn that we are all interested in doing a better job.

I know your anchors appreciate this. I have talked to them. They

didn’t like having egg and omelet all over their face that night.

Their credibility was at stake that night. They don’t like to report

garbage out because they got garbage in. They would like to know

when they make calls and when they make announcements or pronouncements about what the facts are that they are really the facts

and not some speculation that didn’t prove to be right. I am telling

you, they appreciate the fact that we are all trying, you on your

side of the aisle and we on ours, to try to get it right next time

instead of getting it done faster.

Thank you very much. This hearing stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 6:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

VOTER NEWS SERVICE

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10122

April 13, 2001

The Honorable JOHN D. DINGELL

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce

U.S. House of Representatives

Room 2125, Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL: This responds to your letter of March 26, 2001,

which contained twenty-two questions following up on the Committee’s hearing on

the network coverage of the 2000 presidential election. Attached are our responses

to those questions.

We appreciate that during the hearing the Committee recognized the significant

First Amendment issues implicated by its review of the media’s reporting on election results. Our attached responses reflect our endeavor to be responsive to your

inquiries while respecting the strictures of the First Amendment and the need to

maintain the vital independence of the news-gathering and reporting process.

Sincerely,

TED SAVAGLIO

cc: The Honorable W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Chairman

Committee on Energy and Commerce

QUESTIONS FOR VOTER NEWS SERVICE

Question 1. It has been stated in Voter News Service (VNS) documents that VNS

has made only six errors in projecting over 2,800 races. Please describe the dates

and circumstances of those errors and comparisons with the erroneous Florida calls.

Response 1. The statistical models employed by VNS have been utilized in projecting over 2,800 races over the past 32 years. Since its inception in 1993, VNS

has utilized these models to project winners in approximately 545 races. Prior to the

2000 presidential election, VNS made only a single error in issuing a projection. In

1996, VNS projected the wrong candidate as winner of the New Hampshire senatorial election.

Question 2. If VNS has done additional analysis of the New Mexico and Washington calls, please summarize the conclusions and submit the analysis for the

record.

Response 2. Since the February 14, 2001 hearing, VNS has not reached any conclusions concerning the New Mexico or Washington calls.

Question 3. It was originally alleged that VNS and the networks delayed calling

the following states for George W. Bush, which President Bush ultimately won by

a margin of 6 percentage points or more: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,

Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Would you describe the reasons that these states were not called at poll closing?

If any of these races were ‘‘too close to call’’ at poll closing, please list those.

168

Response 3. VNS has no first-hand knowledge of when or why the networks made

particular calls. VNS itself called Alabama at poll closing. A decision by VNS as to

when any given state is ready to be called is based on numerous complex factors,

including an evaluation of the various analytical models presented by the VNS system.

Question 4. Should the error made in the New Hampshire senatorial race in 1996

have given you a warning that the VNS models might not be reliable in very close

races?

Response 4. VNS works very hard to ensure that its statistical models produce

reliable results. Since the 1996 New Hampshire senatorial election, and up to the

presidential election that was the subject of the Committee’s hearing, VNS was correct in all of the projections it issued, including projections made in close races.

Question 5. During the Committee’s hearing, there was an allegation of bias in

the call of Ohio for George W. Bush. Please describe the basis for the Ohio call and

whether or not there was bias against President Bush in this call.

Response 5. VNS categorically denies that there was political bias against President Bush in its Ohio call, or in any other call made by VNS.

Question 6. Dr. Edelman has conducted research on the impact of the non-response rates on exit poll. Please list all of his publications and papers and summarize their conclusions.

Has any other researcher looked at the impact of non-response rates? Please list

all of his/her publications and papers and summarize their conclusions.

Response 6. Dr. Edelman’s publications relating to non-response rates on exit

polls are listed (on page 70) as references to the Research Triangle Institute’s Report to the VNS Members dated January 22, 2001 (the ‘‘RTI Report’’), copies of

which previously have been provided to the Committee. In addition, copies of Dr.

Edelman’s publications previously were provided both to majority and minority

counsel to the Committee.

Question 7. Mr. Biemer of Research Triangle Institute testified that if VNS had

communicated all of the deficiencies and uncertainties on the decision screens to the

networks, they would not have made either of the incorrect Florida calls. Since VNS

itself made the first Florida call, do you agree with that statement? Why or why

not?

What uncertainties did VNS itself ignore in the first Florida call?

Response 7. VNS believes it inappropriate to speculate about hypothetical situations involving VNS members. VNS’ own actions relating to its call of Florida for

Vice President Gore already have been described in VNS’ Submission to the Members, dated December 8, 2000 and the RTI Report, both of which previously were

provided to the Committee, and in testimony before the Committee given by Ted

Savaglio and Dr. Murray Edelman.

Question 8. One of the witnesses at the hearing stated that when the networks

combined to form VNS, they were able to expand the number of precincts used for

exit polling. Elsewhere, it has been stated that both CBS and NBC, which were polling independently, had over 2,000 precincts in their polling sample, while VNS had

only 1,400. Please clarify the number of sample precincts used for polling by CBS/

NBC and VNS. If the total number was reduced under VNS, please give the date

of that reduction and the reasons for it.

Response 8. Since its inception in 1993, VNS has used at least 1399 sample precincts in connection with presidential elections.

Question 9. What is an acceptable precinct sample size for exit polls?

Response 9. The size of an acceptable precinct sample for an exit poll may vary

based upon myriad factors. There is no absolute sample size which, in any and all

circumstances, is required for a reliable exit poll.

Question 10. Please provide a state-by-state comparison of the breakdown of the

vote for Al Gore and George W. Bush as projected by VNS from exit polls and actual

vote.

Response 10. VNS uses its exit poll data in a series of projection models, and

these different models accordingly reflect a series of different projections at the time

a call is made in a given state. Therefore, there is no single basis for comparing

actual vote with a VNS projection. VNS previously provided to the Committee a disk

containing all of the projections made by VNS for all of the states.

Question 11. For the 2000 elections, please describe the training and/or information provided by VNS to the networks’ decision desk personnel.

Question 12. Did VNS have reason to believe that the network decision desks understood the limitations of the end-of-night outstanding vote model? Why or why

not?

169

Question 13. Please describe the methods of communication between the VNS decision desk and the networks’ decision desks. In particular, describe the capability

to send messages out on the decision screen.

Question 14. If VNS wanted to send an instantaneous message to its members

during election night, was it technically possible to do so? If so, why was a message

not sent to warn the members against calling the race for George W. Bush shortly

after 2 a.m.?

Response 11.-14. VNS believes that Congressional inquiries into communications

between VNS and its member news organizations that relate to the editorial process

are inconsistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free and independent press,

and respectfully declines to respond to these questions.

Question 15. Last year, VNS received a report from Batelle Institute which made

recommendations for a new computer system. Please summarize Batelle’s recommendations. Have they been implemented? If not, why not? When will they be

completed?

Response 15. Review of input from Battelle Institute is ongoing.

Question 16. Was there any way VNS could have avoided the New Mexico situation, which resulted from an error by New Mexico election officials?

Response 16. VNS employs stringent quality control systems, and is reviewing

and implementing additional quality control measures. Irrespective of one’s field of

endeavor, no matter how stringent the quality control processes one may adopt, one

simply may not catch every conceivable error.

Question 17. Is it accurate to say that the VNS model produces state-by-state statistical biases that always favor Democrats? Please explain your answer with examples.

Response 17. It absolutely is not accurate to say that the VNS model produces

state-by-state statistical biases that always favor Democrats. Statistical biases

present in exit polling tend to vary from state to state, year to year and election

to election. In the 2000 presidential election, VNS exit polling reflected a statistical

bias towards the Republican candidate in numerous states including Iowa, Missouri

and West Virginia, among others. Similarly, in the 1996 presidential election, VNS

exit polling reflected a statistical bias towards the Republican candidate in a number of states including Connecticut, Louisiana and Oklahoma, among others. For Arkansas, like some other states, VNS’ exit poll reflected a statistical bias toward the

Democratic presidential candidate in one election (2000) but toward the Republican

in another (1996). In elections other than for president, VNS’ exit polling often has

reflected a statistical bias in favor of the Republican candidate, such as the 2000

Indiana and Utah gubernatorial races, and the 2000 Montana senatorial race, for

example.

Question 18. Is it accurate to state that exit polling today is less scientific than

it was in the past, and that ‘‘garbage’’ is going into the exit poll model?

Response 18. It is absolutely false to state that exit polling today is less scientific

than it was in the past, and that ‘‘garbage’’ is going into the exit poll model.

Question 19. Is the VNS modeling approach basically sound, or will it be completely scrapped and recreated in the next two years?

Response 19. The VNS modeling approach is sound and has produced accurate

projections 99.8% of the time since 1990, when the first joint polling and projection

effort began. Nevertheless, as VNS indicated during the hearing, VNS is analyzing

and implementing methods by which to improve its approach.

Question 20. Will you be able to eliminate all of the statistical biases in the models? Why or why not?

Response 20. VNS is committed to identifying, reducing and taking into account

all statistical biases reflected in its exit polling. Statistical biases cannot completely

be eliminated as some statistical bias is inherent in all polling.

Question 21. In the 2000 election, was VNS limited by its budget on the number

of state absentee polls it could take?

Response 21. VNS, like all entities, must operate in accordance with a budget. In

the 2000 election, VNS conducted absentee polls in the states where absentee voting

traditionally has been high.

Question 22. The Research Triangle Institute suggested that VNS consider hiring

an outside polling firm. What is your response to that recommendation? Have you

ever used outside polling firms in the past? Is there any reason that VNS should

have its own exit polling operation?

Response 22. VNS itself has used outside polling firms to conduct telephone polls

of absentee voters.

170

ASSOCIATED PRESS

February 5, 2001

Honorable JOHN D. DINGELL, Ranking Member

Honorable EDWARD J. MARKEY, Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

U.S. House of Representatives

Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2125

Washington, DC 20515

DEAR REP. DINGELL AND REP. MARKEY: Lou Boccardi has asked me to prepare

this response to your letter of January 30 requesting certain information about AP’s

coverage of vote tabulation on election night last November.

Your four questions and AP’s answers follow below and in the attached spreadsheets.

Question 1. The exact time at which The Associated Press called each state for

Governor Bush or Vice President Gore. All calls for Florida should be included in

this tabulation.

Response. Attachment A provides a table containing the time at which AP transmitted to its members a projected winner in each state, and the projected winner’s

name. The table includes as well the AP’s advisories to its members concerning the

Florida results.

Question 2. The person or persons in charge of receiving election night information from the Voter News Service and recommending to Associated Press officials

that a state be called for one of the candidates.

Response. AP’s election night operations encompass bureaus in every state, and

the decision process is widely distributed. The principal persons whose assessments

and judgment are relied upon include the AP chiefs of bureau, news editors and

chief political writers in all of the states, along with political editors in Washington,

D.C., and New York. In addition to data from Voter News Service, these individuals

monitor returns from AP’s independent vote tabulation system, which is described

in the response to Question 4 below. No single AP person precisely fits the role you

describe, but the individual with widest familiarity with AP operations and the decisions made on election night is Sandra K. Johnson, chief of AP’s Washington bureau.

Question 3. If the Associated Press conducted exit polls during the November 7

election, please describe those polls and the purpose for which they are conducted.

Response. AP did not conduct exit polls during the November 7 election and has

never conducted exit polling on its own.

Question 4. Please describe the process by which The Associated Press collected

presidential vote tallies for the November 7 election and provide copies of all vote

tallies for the state of Florida from 7 p.m. EST on November 7 through 8 a.m.

Response. In addition to monitoring the VNS tabulation, AP gathers tabulated

vote returns nationwide on its own. To do this, AP retains election data reporters

in every county of each state. On election night these reporters position themselves

at county election offices where election officials assemble precinct totals. At frequent intervals, as the precinct reports come in and official county totals in each

election race are updated and made public, the AP reporter calls the state AP data

center, where the fresh numbers are received and keypunched into the AP election

database. The database continuously generates a variety of running reports for AP

and its members, always based on the latest available figures.

Attachment B is a table which shows Florida presidential totals for each candidate as AP reported them throughout election night based upon official countyby-county figures, and the margin separating the candidates at each interval.

Please consider these responses as supplementing Mr. Boccardi’s letter to Congressman Tauzin dated November 16, 2000, another copy of which is enclosed.

I believe these answers are complete, but if anything about them is unclear,

please feel free to contact me at (212) 621-1796.

Sincerely,

DAVID TOMLIN

Assistant to the President

c: Honorable W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin (with enclosures)

Enclosures: Attachment A, Attachment B, Letter from Mr. Boccardi to Congressman

Tauzin

171

Schedule A

AP WIN FORECASTS

State Time Candidate

Kentucky ................................................................................ 600 pm .............................................................. Bush

Indiana .................................................................................. 600 pm .............................................................. Bush

South Carolina ...................................................................... 700 pm .............................................................. Bush

Vermont ................................................................................. 700 pm .............................................................. Gore

Virginia ................................................................................. 720 pm .............................................................. Bush

Georgia .................................................................................. 742 pm .............................................................. Bush

Florida ................................................................................... 753 pm .............................................................. Gore*

Connectcut ............................................................................ 800 pm .............................................................. Gore

Delaware ............................................................................... 800 pm .............................................................. Gore

District of Columbia ............................................................. 800 pm .............................................................. Gore

Illinois ................................................................................... 800 pm .............................................................. Gore

Kansas .................................................................................. 800 pm .............................................................. Bush

Maryland ............................................................................... 800 pm .............................................................. Gore

Massachusetts ...................................................................... 800 pm .............................................................. Gore

Mississippi ............................................................................ 800 pm .............................................................. Bush

New Jersey ............................................................................ 800 pm .............................................................. Gore

Oklahoma .............................................................................. 800 pm .............................................................. Bush

Texas ..................................................................................... 800 pm .............................................................. Bush

North Carolina ...................................................................... 808 pm .............................................................. Bush

Alabama ................................................................................ 825 pm .............................................................. Bush

Nebraska ............................................................................... 900 pm .............................................................. Bush

New York ............................................................................... 900 pm .............................................................. Gore

North Dakota ......................................................................... 900 pm .............................................................. Bush

Rhode Island ......................................................................... 900 pm .............................................................. Gore

South Dakota ........................................................................ 900 pm .............................................................. Bush

Wyoming ................................................................................ 900 pm .............................................................. Bush

Michigan ............................................................................... 923 pm .............................................................. Gore

Louisiana .............................................................................. 928 pm .............................................................. Bush

Pennsylvania ......................................................................... 930 pm .............................................................. Gore

Idaho ..................................................................................... 1000 pm ............................................................ Bush

Montana ................................................................................ 1000 pm ............................................................ Bush

Utah ...................................................................................... 1000 pm ............................................................ Bush

Tennessee ............................................................................. 1003 pm ............................................................ Bush

Minnesota ............................................................................. 1025 pm ............................................................ Gore

West Virginia ........................................................................ 1049 pm ............................................................ Bush

Missouri ................................................................................ 1052 pm ............................................................ Bush

Ohio ....................................................................................... 1058 pm ............................................................ Bush

California .............................................................................. 1100 pm ............................................................ Gore

Hawaii ................................................................................... 1100 pm ............................................................ Gore

Maine .................................................................................... 1110 pm ............................................................ Gore

Colorado ................................................................................ 1140 pm ............................................................ Bush

Arizona .................................................................................. 1150 pm ............................................................ Bush

Alaska ................................................................................... 1200 am, Nov. 8 ............................................... Bush

New Hampshire ..................................................................... 1205 am, Nov. 8 ............................................... Bush

Arkansas ............................................................................... 1217 am, Nov. 8 ............................................... Bush

Nevada .................................................................................. 130 am, Nov. 8 ................................................. Bush

Washington ........................................................................... 130 am, Nov. 8 ................................................. Gore

Florida ................................................................................... 311 am, Nov. 8 ................................................. **

Iowa ...................................................................................... 355 am, Nov. 8 ................................................. Gore

Wisconsin .............................................................................. 608 am, Nov. 8 ................................................. Gore

Oregon ................................................................................... 712 pm, Nov. 10 ............................................... Gore

New Mexico ........................................................................... Nov. 17 .............................................................. Gore

*At 9:59 p.m. AP transmitted an advisory to its members rescinding its earlier projection.

**At 3:11 a.m. AP transmitted the following advisory to its members:

EDITORS:

The lead in Florida for George W. Bush has dwindled to about 6,000 in the vote count. A small percentage of the vote has yet to be re- ported in several counties, including two predominantly Democratic counties.

AP believes the uncounted votes in Broward and Palm Beach counties could allow a change of the lead in the Florida vote. We are watch- ing the resolution of the actual vote count to assure if there is a change in the Florida results, which could yet have an impact on the out- come of the presidential election.

The AP

172

Schedule B

AP FLORIDA RESULTS

Time Bush Gore Bush Lead

19:22 ....................................................................................................................................... 13641 12437 1204

19:27 ....................................................................................................................................... 41123 34245 6878

19:42 ....................................................................................................................................... 52098 47647 4451

19:47 ....................................................................................................................................... 118324 112966 5358

19:52 ....................................................................................................................................... 118605 113106 5499

19:53 ....................................................................................................................................... 124883 116278 8605

20:02 ....................................................................................................................................... 181379 185435 -4056

20:17 ....................................................................................................................................... 274695 287878 -13183

20:22 ....................................................................................................................................... 638895 631331 7564

20:27 ....................................................................................................................................... 644233 635895 8338

20:32 ....................................................................................................................................... 658367 650284 8083

20:42 ....................................................................................................................................... 712380 699609 12771

20:47 ....................................................................................................................................... 738680 729491 9189

20:52 ....................................................................................................................................... 777562 748165 29397

20:53 ....................................................................................................................................... 779409 749198 30211

21:02 ....................................................................................................................................... 910052 829501 80551

21:12 ....................................................................................................................................... 979145 884020 95125

21:17 ....................................................................................................................................... 1052295 932082 120213

21:22 ....................................................................................................................................... 1085828 965030 120798

21:27 ....................................................................................................................................... 1129137 1005241 123896

21:32 ....................................................................................................................................... 1161106 1037804 123302

21:42 ....................................................................................................................................... 1298213 1191676 106537

21:47 ....................................................................................................................................... 1332881 1216992 115889

21:52 ....................................................................................................................................... 1416422 1280948 135474

21:53 ....................................................................................................................................... 1418504 1282503 136001

22:02 ....................................................................................................................................... 1487890 1352114 135776

22:12 ....................................................................................................................................... 1611442 1447603 163839

22:17 ....................................................................................................................................... 1650392 1490767 159625

22:22 ....................................................................................................................................... 1697049 1549320 147729

22:27 ....................................................................................................................................... 1741816 1597744 144072

22:32 ....................................................................................................................................... 1781530 1632164 149366

22:42 ....................................................................................................................................... 1850659 1703923 146736

22:47 ....................................................................................................................................... 1939188 1788296 150892

22:52 ....................................................................................................................................... 2015897 1870672 145225

22:58 ....................................................................................................................................... 2051892 1905072 146820

23:02 ....................................................................................................................................... 2059462 1914107 145355

23:12 ....................................................................................................................................... 2142726 2008164 134562

23:17 ....................................................................................................................................... 2168931 2021991 146940

23:20 ....................................................................................................................................... 2193550 2040857 152693

23:21 ....................................................................................................................................... 2198973 2049265 149708

23:22 ....................................................................................................................................... 2199593 2049699 149894

23:27 ....................................................................................................................................... 2199593 2049699 149894

23:32 ....................................................................................................................................... 2261404 2120834 140570

23:42 ....................................................................................................................................... 2364342 2229006 135336

23:47 ....................................................................................................................................... 2364342 2229006 135336

23:47 ....................................................................................................................................... 2387413 2251637 135776

23:52 ....................................................................................................................................... 2408540 2280202 128338

23:53 ....................................................................................................................................... 2408540 2280202 128338

0:02 ......................................................................................................................................... 2427272 2293101 134171

0:12 ......................................................................................................................................... 2501890 2366565 135325

0:17 ......................................................................................................................................... 2502581 2366905 135676

0:22 ......................................................................................................................................... 2521902 2383009 138893

0:27 ......................................................................................................................................... 2549937 2423468 126469

0:32 ......................................................................................................................................... 2549937 2423468 126469

0:42 ......................................................................................................................................... 2564441 2435897 128544

0:47 ......................................................................................................................................... 2609768 2497657 112111

0:47 ......................................................................................................................................... 2609768 2497657 112111

0:53 ......................................................................................................................................... 2609768 2497657 112111

1:02 ......................................................................................................................................... 2610984 2498403 112581

1:12 ......................................................................................................................................... 2709650 2627317 82333

1:17 ......................................................................................................................................... 2709753 2627347 82406

1:22 ......................................................................................................................................... 2736318 2672793 63525

1:27 ......................................................................................................................................... 2736318 2672793 63525

173

Schedule B—Continued

AP FLORIDA RESULTS

Time Bush Gore Bush Lead

1:31 ......................................................................................................................................... 2736318 2676793 59525

1:42 ......................................................................................................................................... 2749894 2685533 64361

1:47 ......................................................................................................................................... 2763925 2701035 62890

1:47 ......................................................................................................................................... 2799648 2743162 56486

1:52 ......................................................................................................................................... 2799648 2743162 56486

2:02 ......................................................................................................................................... 2799648 2743162 56486

2:12 ......................................................................................................................................... 2822029 2774175 47854

2:16 ......................................................................................................................................... 2825865 2795352 30513

2:22 ......................................................................................................................................... 2850199 2834840 15359

2:27 ......................................................................................................................................... 2873834 2854829 19005

2:32 ......................................................................................................................................... 2873834 2854829 19005

2:42 ......................................................................................................................................... 2884625 2870618 14007

2:47 ......................................................................................................................................... 2884845 2870911 13934

2:47 ......................................................................................................................................... 2885417 2871463 13954

2:52 ......................................................................................................................................... 2890277 2879187 11090

3:02 ......................................................................................................................................... 2899999 2893634 6365

3:12 ......................................................................................................................................... 2903251 2901571 1680

3:17 ......................................................................................................................................... 2903251 2901571 1680

3:22 ......................................................................................................................................... 2903251 2901571 1680

3:27 ......................................................................................................................................... 2906997 2904519 2478

3:32 ......................................................................................................................................... 2906997 2904519 2478

3:42 ......................................................................................................................................... 2906997 2904519 2478

3:47 ......................................................................................................................................... 2906997 2904519 2478

3:47 ......................................................................................................................................... 2906997 2904519 2478

3:52 ......................................................................................................................................... 2906997 2904519 2478

4:02 ......................................................................................................................................... 2906997 2904519 2478

4:12 ......................................................................................................................................... 2906997 2904519 2478

4:17 ......................................................................................................................................... 2906997 2904519 2478

4:22 ......................................................................................................................................... 2906997 2904519 2478

4:27 ......................................................................................................................................... 2906997 2904519 2478

4:32 ......................................................................................................................................... 2906997 2904519 2478

4:42 ......................................................................................................................................... 2907600 2905712 1888

4:47 ......................................................................................................................................... 2907600 2905712 1888

4:52 ......................................................................................................................................... 2907600 2905712 1888

ASSOCIATED PRESS

November 16, 2000

Congressman BILLY TAUZIN

House of Representatives

2183 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

DEAR CONGRESSMAN TAUZIN: I write in response to your letter of November 9 concerning reporting of the presidential election results last week, particularly the use

of exit polling and the projection of final results.

As you may know, the media partners in the Voter News Service have long agreed

that no winner should be declared in any state before the great majority of polls

are closed in that state. That consensus originated in 1985 as an understanding between the broadcast networks and Congress. Although AP was not a party to it, we

have abided by it, and we signed on to it expressly when VNS was formed in 1993.

If the agreement among those with access to exit polling and early vote tabulations were modified so that winners within a state are not projected until every precinct in that state—not just a majority—has reported, AP would be in agreement.

A few sentences of background about AP might be useful.

AP is a not-for-profit industry-owned news cooperative governed by a board (mostly elected but with some appointed seats) made up of owners and senior managers

of the U.S. media companies we serve, approximately 1,700 newspapers and 5,000

radio and television stations. We serve thousands more subscribers overseas, along

with a growing base of Internet and other specialty news distributors. We have bureaus in every state (two, I might say, in Louisiana) and in more than 100 nations

around the world.

174

We do not operate at what you might call the ‘‘retail’’ level. Our mission is to

serve other news organizations with the most accurate, complete and balanced reporting possible. We express no editorial opinions. On election night, as always, editors here are aware that not only AP’s reputation but those of thousands of other

news distributors depend on the quality of our work—its accuracy, its timeliness

and its fairness.

As a VNS member, AP has access to the results of VNS exit polls on election day,

and VNS vote counts on election night for federal and statewide offices.

As you know, AP and the network partners have instructed VNS management to

conduct a detailed internal review of its systems for processing poll data and tabulated votes to ensure against a recurrence of last week’s problems.

AP also operates a backup vote tabulating system of its own for federal and statewide races. We also tabulate votes for state legislative elections and ballot issues,

a total of roughly 6,000 contests in all. By contrast, VNS reports votes from about

550 races.

AP decisions to project a winner in major elections represent our own editorial

judgment by reporters and editors with specialized knowledge of each state’s electoral demographics. Debates, conflicting interpretations, discrepancies are all dealt

with as integral pieces of our editorial process for handling returns. Those processes

do not vary by state.

You ask if a projection on the presidential outcome was made in any state other

than Florida and Kentucky when any polls remained open. There are 13 states with

more than one time zone. We declared Bush the winner in Kansas while polls remained open to 1 percent of the voting age population, and in Indiana, where 18

percent still had time to vote if they hadn’t already. As you know, neither state was

a close call.

Finally, I would add only that the core here is the editorial process, human judgment bolstered by sophisticated but not infallible tools. I have tried to be responsive

to your inquiry without compromising the necessary independence of the news-gathering and reporting process.

Sincerely yours,

LOUIS D. BOCCARDI

President and Chief Executive Officer

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

March 26, 2001

Mr. ANDREW HEYWARD

President

CBS News

524 West 57th Street

New York, New York 10019

DEAR MR. HEYWARD: I have attached questions as a follow-up to the Committee’s

hearing on the network coverage of the 2000 presidential election. I request that you

provide answers to these questions for the record.

Please submit your response by close of business on Monday, April 9, 2001. If

your staff has any questions or needs additional information, please have them contact Edith Holleman, Minority Counsel, at (202) 226-3400.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL

Ranking Member

Attachment

cc: The Honorable W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Chairman

Committee on Energy and Commerce

QUESTIONS FOR ANDREW HEYWARD, CBS NEWS

Question 1. In 1980, the networks called the election for Ronald Reagan before

the polls had closed in the Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones. The 2000

presidential election appears to have presented a quite different fact pattern. Did

CBS call the 2000 presidential election for Al Gore before the polls closed in the

Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones? Did CBS ever imply that because Florida was called for Al Gore, the race was over?

Question 2. The attached excerpt from a transcript of a press conference held on

November 14, 2000, by Chairman Tauzin and other members of the Committee chalVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:24 Aug 22, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DISC\71490.TXT ATX007 PsN: ATX007
175

lenged the networks to prove that their coverage was not intentionally biased. Is

it your position that you have met this burden of proof?

Question 3. Your report states that the CBS decision team made an assumption

that half of the votes were counted in Washington State at the time CBS called that

race. What was the basis for that assumption?

Question 4. What was the ‘‘outer limit of sampling error’’ that CBS accepted in

the exit and pre-election absentee polls? Why did CBS accept this outer limit?

Question 5. Did CBS’ own investigation find evidence of biased modeling? Please

explain.

Question 6. In the ten years that Voter News Service and its predecessor have

existed as a consortium, have any of the networks asked for a ‘‘bottoms up’’ review

of the operation? If not, why?

CBS NEWS

NEW YORK, NEW YORK

April 9, 2001

The Honorable JOHN D. DINGELL

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: I am responding to your inquiry of March 26, 2001.

Here is the additional information you requested about our coverage of Election

Night 2000.

CBS News never called the presidential race for Al Gore. In fact, when CBS

News did call the presidential election at 2:17 a.m., there were no polls still open

anywhere in the U.S. CBS News never implied that the early call for Al Gore in

Florida meant the race was over. In fact, our independent expert, Dr. Kathleen Hall

Jamieson, Dean of the Annenberg School for Communication, noted in the CBS report on Election Night coverage that Dan Rather explicitly made the point that ‘‘The

Florida [Gore] call does not make a Gore victory inevitable, but it makes Gore viable.’’ (p.46)

Chairman W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin said at the hearing on February 14, 2001, that ‘‘as

an initial matter, I want to take something quickly off the table...[our investigators] found no evidence of intentional misleading or biased reporting.’’ As I wrote

in my December 11, 2000, letter to you, ‘‘We unequivocally reject the notion that

bias played any part in the way that we reported the events of November 7.’’

Washington State cast ballots on Election Day in two ways: by absentee voting,

which comprised 50 percent of the votes, and by voters going to the polls on Election

Day, which made up the other half. When CBS News called the Washington State

Senate race at 12:54 a.m. Election Night, 26 percent of the precinct vote had been

counted, and the Decision Desk assumed that half the absentee votes had been

counted as well. Regrettably, that was not the case.

In Washington State, pre-Election Day polls were used to project the expected

votes from the absentee ballots, while Election Day exit polls were used to project

the outcome of the in-person voting. The ‘‘outer limit of sampling error’’ phrase

meant the following: in the Gorton/Cantwell race, the sampling error of the exit

polls was plus or minus 4 percentage points for each candidate’s percentage, which

could mean a maximum 8 percentage points on the margin between the candidates.

When CBS News called Cantwell, the polls showed her ahead by 13 points wrong

all Election Day polling place voters. In fact, we believe she carried those voters by

only 5 or 6 points. The Voter News Service pre-election absentee voter poll suggested that absentee voters would be evenly split between Cantwell and Gorton.

However, it appears the absentee voters favored Gorton by about 6 points.

These differences are still within the sampling error of three to four percentage

points on each candidate’s percentage, but they are at the ‘‘outer limit’’ of the sampling error. It is very rare for two separate surveys (one a phone survey, the other

an in-person exit poll) to be at that extreme and to be off in the same direction.

This is a case where one reform we have adopted for future Election Nights—toughening the criteria for making calls in the closest races—might have prevented the

premature call.

As for your question of biased modeling, the models themselves are neutral. They

are not ‘‘biased’’ in any political sense. In its independent review of VNS exit polls,

RTI reported that Democratic strength is more often overstated than Republican,

but RTI did not attribute that to the model itself. RTI suggested it might be the

result of non-response by Republicans. We will continue to improve the accuracy of

the models’ predictions.

176

Finally, there has never been a ‘‘bottoms up’’ review of VNS, as there was never

a reason for one. Until this year the system had made more than 2000 calls with

only 6 errors since the 1960s. VRS, the predecessor to VNS, emerged from the CBS

election system. CBS News was comfortable with the system, one that had performed excellently in the VRS and then the VNS configuration (with only one error

between 1990 and 1998). We assume other members investigated the system when

they joined the consortium and were also comfortable with it. As far as I know, no

‘‘bottoms up’’ review was ever requested by any member after it joined the consortium.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify these matters.

Sincerely,

ANDREW HEYWARD

President

ABC NEWS

NEW YORK, NEW YORK

April 9, 2001

The Honorable JOHN D. DINGELL

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

United States House of Representatives

2125 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515-6115

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: Thank you for your letter of March 26, 2001, I enclose the responses of ABC News to your questions.

Sincerely,

DAVID A. WESTIN

President

ABC TELEVISION NETWORK RESPONSE TO INQUIRY FROM THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

AND COMMERCE

Question 1. In 1980, the networks called the election for Ronald Reagan before

the polls had closed in the Central, Mountain, and Pacific Time zones. The 2000

presidential election appears to have presented a quite different fact pattern. Did

ABC call the 2000 presidential election for Al Gore before the polls closed in the

Central, Mountain, and Pacific Time zones? Did ABC ever imply that because Florida was called for Al Gore, the race was over?

Answer: ABC News did not ever project that Mr. Gore won the 2000 presidential

election. Nor did ABC News state during its election broadcast that the former Vice

President’s apparent early victory in Florida decided the election. To the contrary,

until the 2:10 AM projection. for Mr. Bush, ABC News reported throughout the

evening that the 2000 election was extraordinarily close and could be won by either

candidate. This was the case even during the 40 minute period in which ABC News

had projected that Mr. Gore would prevail in Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania.

During that time, ABC News stressed that Mr. Bush could lose these three states

and still ultimately win the presidency, depending on the outcome of a number of

hotly contested races in western states.

Question 2. The attached excerpt from a transcript of a press conference held on

November 14, 2000, by Chairman Tauzin and other members of the Committee challenged the networks to prove that their coverage was not intentionally biased, Is

it your position that you have met this burden of proof?

Answer: ABC News has demonstrated through evidence and testimony submitted

to the Congress that there was no intentional political bias in its coverage of the

2000 election. At a subsequent press conference in February, and at the February

14, 2001, hearing Chairman Tauzin acknowledged that no such bias was found.

Question 3. In 1990, the networks did not have their own decision desks independent of Voter News Service’s (VNS) predecessor, so there was no competition

among them to call states. In 1994, ABC surprised all of the other VNS members

by setting up its own decision desk to name winners.

Why did ABC start the competition? Do you think it is reasonable to expect that

competing networks will eliminate their own decision desks again?

Answer: ABC News consistently strives to provide thorough, timely, and accurate

reporting to its audience. The decision desk is part of ABC News’ comprehensive

election unit, and the decision to use an independent decision desk in 1994 was part

of a journalistic judgment that the audience would be well served by the addition.

177

ABC News has no information concerning the plans of other networks in covering

future elections.

Question 4. In 2000, ABC hired two statistical experts to look at the VNS models

to make sure that they did not make the same mistake made in New Hampshire

in 1996 and call the race wrong. According to an article in American Journalism

Review, these experts spent four days familiarizing themselves with the VNS models.

Did they reassure you that a mistake like New Hampshire could not be made

again?

Answer: For the 2000 election, ABC News retained two outside experts for assistance on various matters, including the mistaken projection in the New Hampshire

Senate race in 1996. These experts suggested ways to reduce the chances of such

a problem recurring, but obviously could not guarantee that similar problems could

not arise in other elections.

Question 5. Your experts stated that they did not believe the first Florida call

should have been made because of the limited exit poll data and the lack of knowledge about absentee voting. They did not believe the second Florida call should have

been made because the absentee vote was not all in, and that there could be errors

in the vote tallies. But these experts were overridden by the journalist running your

decision desk. Please explain why.

Answer: While we will not comment on the precise deliberations of the journalists

who staffed the desk on election night, the decision team assigned to make the Florida projection took all available information into account. As shown on the decision

screens made available to the Committee, the data and the statistical models fully

supported the projection of ABC News for Vice President Gore in Florida at the time

it was made. In reviewing the data after the fact, it appeared that these data and

models were mistaken in three respects, First, the exit poll data included in the

models overstated Vice President Gore’s advantage. The check on this possible error

in the system failed because, by coincidence, the first few precincts reporting actual

vote tallies indicated (erroneously) that Vice President Gore’s lead was being underpredicted (rather than over-predicted) by the exit poll results. Second, the absentee

ballots were more numerous and more favorable to Governor Bush than anticipated.

Finally, the statistical models used the 1998 governor’s race as the past comparison

race. This provided a poor comparison that resulted in an overstatement of Vice

President Gore’s lead. At the time ABC News made its first projection in Florida,

we knew about the possibility of these errors. We believed they had been adequately

accounted for in the statistical models. We were wrong.

Question 6. If your decision desk knew that the outstanding votes at 2:10 a.m.

were in the very heavily Democratic counties of Palm Beach and Brevard, why did

they not know that the vote totals for each candidate could radically change?

Answer: The data available at 2:10 a.m. adequately supported the projection for

Mr. Bush. Specifically, the information available suggested that even taking into

consideration the estimated outstanding vote, Mr. Gore could not overtake Mr.

Bush’s lead. As we are now aware, there were two problems with the data: 1) the

model severely underestimated the number of votes that were outstanding; and 2)

a tabulation error in Volusia county overstated Bush’s lead by 20,000 votes. If even

one of these had not occurred, a projection would not have been made.

Question 7. In the ten years that VNS and its predecessor have existed as a consortium, have any of the networks asked for a ‘‘bottoms up’’ review of the operation?

If not, why not?

Answer: All of the networks are and were actively involved in the operation of

VNS. Together, we comprise its governing board. The VNS statistical models are dynamic, with changes put into place following each election. Nothing in the prior, exemplary record of VNS suggested a ‘‘bottoms up’’ review was required. Indeed, before the election of 2000, those most closely involved with VNS can remember only

one instance in which a VNS projection ultimately proved wrong (the 1996 New

Hampshire Senate race). In that case, VNS retained outside experts to examine

what happened in the race, The experts were unable to recommend any definitive

steps to guard against a similar problem. Finally, the board members are currently

engaged in a thorough review of the VNS operation as the 2000 election revealed

a number of deficiencies that VNS must immediately address.

178

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

March 26, 2001

Ms. JOAN KONNER

Professor of Journalism and Dean Emerita

Graduate School of Journalism

Columbia University

200 Central Park South, #33B

New York, New York 10019

DEAR MS. KONNER: I have attached questions as a follow-up to the Committee’s

hearing on the network coverage of the 2000 presidential election. I request that you

provide answers to these questions for the record.

Please submit your response by close of business on Monday, April 9, 2001. If

your staff has any questions or needs additional information, please have them contact Edith Holleman, Minority Counsel, at (202) 226-3400.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL

Ranking Member

Attachments

cc: The Honorable W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Chairman

Committee on Energy and Commerce

QUESTIONS FOR JOAN KONNER

Question 1. When Representative Sherrod Brown asked at the Committee’s hearing on network coverage of elections if there should be a policy that close relatives

of candidates, such as brothers, sisters, cousins, etc., should not be allowed to be

on the networks’ decision desk on election night, you responded by stating that if

there was a ‘‘perceived conflict of interest’’ there should be ‘‘some layers of insulation

between that individual and the person who is going to make the announcement on

the air.’’

John Ellis, a first cousin of George W. Bush, was hired by Fox in 1998 to—in Mr.

Ellis’ words—‘‘professionalize the poll desk.’’ (Mr. Ellis had worked on election coverage for NBC from 1980-89.) However, in a July 3, 1999, column in the Boston

Globe, Mr. Ellis stated that he would no longer write about the 2000 campaign because, ‘‘I am loyal to my cousin, Governor George Bush of Texas. I put that loyalty

ahead of my loyalty to anyone else outside my immediate family...there is no way

for you to know if I am telling you the truth about George W. Bush’s presidential

campaign because in his case, my loyalty goes to him and not to you.’’ (Copy attached.) In the fall of 2000, Mr. Ellis was interviewed on a Frontline show called

‘‘The Choice 2000’’ as a family member about his knowledge of George W. Bush and

the Bush family. (Copy attached.)

Despite this, John Ellis was selected again to head the Fox decision desk in 2000.

He then made the first call of Florida—and the entire election—for George W. Bush.

In your opinion, would these circumstances as described above establish a ‘‘perceived conflict of interest’’ on Mr. Ellis’ part?

Question 2. When Mr. Ellis worked at NBC, and his uncle was a candidate for

President in 1988, he did not work on the decision desk, but wrote the daily political

news summary. He told our staff in an interview that even then his loyalty ‘‘was

to my uncle, not to NBC News.’’ How should a network handle such a perceived conflict of interest?

Question 3. There has been an allegation in the press that the network anchors

talked so much about ‘‘Gore’s winning ways’’ on the East Coast that Slade Gorton

lost the Senatorial election in Washington State. Washington is a state with a 50

percent absentee vote. Did your panel reach this conclusion about Washington or

any other state in its review of CNN’s election night coverage?

Question 4. In your opinion, was it complacency or the time crunch caused by competition that kept the networks from checking the Associated Press’ vote totals before calling the election for George W. Bush shortly after 2 a.m.?

Question 5. Please describe the relationship between the CNN/CBS decision desk

and the VNS decision desk in terms of pre-election training and discussion of the

model and the communications on election night. How would you improve it?

179

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM

March 30, 2001

EDITH HOLLEMAN

Minority Counsel

US House of Representatives

Committee on Energy and Commerce

Room 2125

Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515-6115

DEAR EDITH, attached find the answers to the questions sent to me by Rep. John

Dingell:

Sincerely,

JOAN KONNER

RESPONSES

Response 1. The answer to your question is ‘‘yes.’’ If John Ellis had, indeed, made

comments stating that his loyalties to the Bush family superceded any commitment

he has to his profession or his employer, then I would judge that to be not only a

perceived conflict-of-interest but a real conflict-of-interest for a journalist. (I did not

know at the time of the hearing that he had made any such statement.) While that

does not disqualify an individual from any position as a journalist, it would, in my

judgement, disqualify that person for any decision-making role involving reporting

on his relatives during an election. Often friends and relatives are hired by journalism organizations because of their connections to the newsmakers. Their access

to sources makes them valuable to the organization. However, the news organization should take every precaution against placing such an individual in an assignment that could result in bias in reporting.

Response 2. As you are well aware, many of those who appear as pundits on the

air, and also in print, have worked for political parties and/or political candidates

and officeholders. Their political background and bias are known facts of their fife.

Some individuals leave politics behind them and become very good objective reporters and commentators. Many others remain party or candidate apologists. Personally, I deplore casting someone in the role of a journalist, reporter or commentator,

who clearly is in politics, not journalism. However, the practice is so widespread

that to recommend removing those people from the air or from print, would be to

remove what passes today as political commentary. I wouldn’t object to that, but I

know it is unrealistic to expect that that will happen.

Response 3. I do not think there is any evidence that network reporting affected

the outcome of any election. I am not aware that CNN or any other network favored

the campaign of Al Gore. In fact, most of the coverage of both Al Gore and his campaign was highly critical.

Response 4. It was not complacency or a time crunch. Our report stated that

hyper-competition, over reliance on polls, and speed accounted for the errors. There

is no deadline for getting it right. The urge to beat the competition and to demonstrate that you can interpret the numbers better than any of your competitors

were the driving forces behind the decision-making on election night. Call it arrogance or hubris, if you want. We did not.

Response 5. We did not examine the relationship between the CNN and CBS decision desks that night. Our information indicated that the election coverage as a

whole at CNN was planned and operated independently. We did not examine or report directly on the pre-election training at VNS, although there were studies by

other organizations that did. One report, in particular, was both complimentary as

well as critical. The documents we examined indicated that the communication between VNS and its members was not what it should have been. VNS failed to notify

its members of known errors in a timely fashion and VNS was unable to correct

errors promptly. There were other unacceptable errors and failures—human and

technological—in both the tabulation and communication systems. The report recommended that every effort be made to examine and analyze the weaknesses and

breakdown in the system and that every effort be made to fix it or to develop a new

system.

180

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

March 26, 2001

Mr. JAMES V. RISSER

Retired Director

Knight Fellowship Program

Stanford University

394 Diamond Street

San Francisco, California 94114

DEAR MR. RISSER: I have attached questions as a follow-up to the Committee’s

hearing on the network coverage of the 2000 presidential election. I request that you

provide answers to these questions for the record.

Please submit your response by close of business on Monday, April 9, 2001. If

your staff has any questions or needs additional information, please have them contact Edith Holleman, Minority Counsel, at (202) 226-3400.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL

Ranking Member

Attachments

cc: The Honorable W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Chairman

Committee on Energy and Commerce

QUESTIONS FOR JAMES RISSER

1. When Representative Sherrod Brown asked you at the Committee’s hearing on

network coverage of elections if there should be a policy that close relatives of candidates, such as brothers, sisters, cousins, etc., should not be allowed to be on the

networks’ decision desk on election night, you responded by stating that if there was

a ‘‘perceived conflict of interest’’ there should be ‘‘some layers of insulation between

that individual and the person who is going to make the announcement on the air.’’

John Ellis, a first cousin of George W. Bush, was hired by Fox in 1998 to—in Mr.

Ellis’ words—‘‘professionalize the poll desk.’’ (Mr. Ellis had worked on election coverage for NBC from 1980-89.) However, in a July 3, 1999, column in the Boston

Globe, Mr. Ellis stated that he would no longer write about the 2000 campaign because, ‘‘I am loyal to my cousin, Governor George Bush of Texas. I put that loyalty

ahead of my loyalty to anyone else outside my immediate family...there is no way

for you to know if I am telling you the truth about George W. Bush’s presidential

campaign because in his case, my loyalty goes to him and not to you.’’ (Copy attached.) In the fall of 2000, Mr. Ellis was interviewed on a Frontline show called

‘‘The Choice 2000’’ as a family member about his knowledge of George W. Bush and

the Bush family. (Copy attached.)

Despite this, John Ellis was selected again to head the Fox decision desk in 2000.

He then made the first call of Florida—and the entire election—for George W. Bush.

In your opinion, would these circumstances as described above establish a ‘‘perceived conflict of interest’’ on Mr. Ellis’ part?

2. When Mr. Ellis worked at NBC, and his uncle was a candidate for President

in 1988, he did not work on the decision desk, but wrote the daily political news

summary. He told our staff in an interview that even then his loyalty ‘‘was to my

uncle, not to NBC News.’’ How should a network handle such a perceived conflict

of interest?

3. There has been an allegation in the press that the network anchors talked so

much about ‘‘Gore’s winning ways’’ on the East Coast that Slade Gorton lost the

Senatorial election in Washington State. Washington is a state with a 50 percent

absentee vote. Did your panel reach this conclusion about Washington or any other

state in its review of CNN’s election night coverage?

4. In your opinion, was it complacency or the time crunch caused by competition

that kept the networks from checking the Associated Press’ vote totals before calling

the election for George W. Bush shortly after 2 a.m.?

5. Please describe the relationship between the CNN/CBS decision desk and the

VNS decision desk in terms of pre-election training and discussion of the model and

the communications on election night. How would you improve it?

181

April 2, 2001

The Honorable JOHN D. DINGELL

Committee on Energy and Commerce

U.S. House of Representatives

2125 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515-6115

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: In answer to the five questions that you sent me

on March 26, as a follow-up to the hearing on network coverage of the 2000 presidential election, I would answer as follows:

(1) If the circumstances surrounding John Ellis are as described in your first

question, then I would agree that a ‘‘perceived conflict of interest’’ existed on Mr.

Ellis’ part.

(2) Assuming the circumstances involving Mr. Ellis and NBC News back in 1988

were as described in your second question, and also assuming that NBC News knew

that Mr. Ellis was a nephew of presidential candidate George H.W. Bush, the network should not have employed him to write the daily political news summary. I

believe this is true, whether or not the network knew of Mr. Ellis’ attitude of owing

loyalty to his uncle and not to NBC News.

(3) The panel on which I served did not investigate nor reach any conclusion

about the impact on Washington State or other states of Vice President Gore’s supposed ‘‘winning ways’’ in the East.

(4) I believe that both complacency and the time crunch were factors in the networks not checking Associated Press vote totals before calling Florida and the election for George W. Bush. The networks were under self-imposed time pressures to

make a call, and in addition they were too complacent about the accuracy of information received from Voter News Service.

(5) I don’t have enough knowledge of the pre-election training, the discussion of

computer models, and the election night communications to answer this question

about the relationship between the CNN/CBS decision desk and VNS.

Sincerely,

JAMES V. RISSER

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242