Media

Hypocrisy on the editorial pages

by Dan Kennedy

Not surprisingly, the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald have taken editorial positions on the Florida recount in accordance with their choices for president. Thus the Globe, which endorsed Al Gore, thinks hand recounts are essential to determining the real winner, whereas the Herald, which backed George W. Bush, has editorialized against them.

But surely two major daily newspapers wouldn't base their analyses of the efficacy of hand counts solely on their political preferences, would they?

A glance at the historical record shows that they would indeed. In 1996, the Globe supported former human-services official Phil Johnston in the Democratic primary for the 10th Congressional District; the Herald endorsed then-Norfolk County district attorney Bill Delahunt. The initial count showed that Johnston had won in a 266-vote squeaker. Looming over the final tally, however, was the now-familiar specter of malfunctioning punch-card machines. A recount cut Johnston's margin to 181 votes. But when Delahunt asked for a hand count of 900 contested ballots, the Herald backed him up -- and the Globe cried foul. (Delahunt's court challenge was successful, and he ended up winning by 108 votes.)

In an editorial that carried the brutal headline SLOW LOSER, the Globe chided: "Delahunt lost the primary to Johnston two weeks ago and was declared the loser again Monday after recounts in several communities. Now he wants another try, in court. But his prospects appear equally doubtful there. The only clear winner in Delahunt's maneuverings is the Republican candidate, Edward Teague."

The Herald, in a mirror-image of its current stance, instructed that "at its core this is a fight about the right to vote," adding: "What happened in Weymouth on primary day last month shouldn't have happened. Between 800 and 900 registered voters came out -- in a drenching, driving rainstorm, you'll recall -- to cast ballots. These were the new high-tech, punch-card type. But for hundreds of voters high tech didn't work. The `punch-outs' didn't happen. The ballots in question showed a partial punch or indentation, but the ballots were considered `blanks.' "

In a particularly rich bit of irony, the Herald said of Delahunt: "The Norfolk County district attorney isn't winning himself any friends in his own party with his court challenge. But sometimes the politically easy thing to do isn't the right thing to do." Of course, the Herald might have paid a similar tribute to Gore. But no. Instead, the paper has approvingly observed of Bush that "he will not allow this presidential race to be stolen from him without a fight," and has blasted the Gore campaign's effort to have machine-rejected ballots counted by hand, sneering that "those doing the recount are apparently permitted to read minds as well as ballots."

Not to be outdone, the Globe showed far greater solicitousness toward the voters of Miami-Dade County on Monday than it had to the residents of Weymouth four years ago. "Without a manual recount there," the paper intoned, "it will never be known whom those voters intended to elect as president, or even whether they really intended to blank the race."

As the old adage goes, where you stand depends on where you sit.