In it, he wrote, "Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as conspiracy theories, and The New York Times declared that 'there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale".''
In May, PRWeek held an extensive Q&A with Greg Palast, a British-based American journalist who had been writing about similar allegations in the wake of the 2004 election.
Palast told PRWeek, "For example, when I wrote an article [called] 'Kerry Won' in November of 2004, which was done for Britain's Observer paper - where I had George Orwell's old column - the New York Times called me to ask me, first, 'Are you a conspiracy nut?'
"And the second question, 'Are you a sore loser?' And that was it. That was the extent of the interview. And I said, 'Don't you want to know what the evidence might be?'…
"They ran an article on the front page, 'Vote Fraud Theories Spread by Blogs are Quickly Buried.' So BBC Television and the Observer, the most prestigious paper in the English language, are now 'blogs,' and we are spreading vote fraud theories. The article has no discussion of evidence… The idea was to discredit anyone who might question the results…"
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the Forum.