Random Michael Moore Deceits [#22]

John Ellis [from Fahrenheit 9/11]

Within the first few frames of F9-11, Moore attempts to deliver with some success his first roundhouse punch, aimed at Bush: The “John Ellis is Bush’s cousin and called the election for him.” conspiracy.

Here is what he said:

"Now what most people don’t know is that the man who was in charge of the decision desk at Fox that night, the man who called it for Bush was none other than Bush’s first cousin, John Ellis. How does someone like Bush get away with something like this?

(Cut to scene of Bush laughing)"

I would contend that what most people don’t know is who John Ellis really is. Moore gives the impression that he is one of the most pivotal characters in the biggest conspiracy in the American electoral process. To see how Moore slips his name into the scheme makes it look as if his hiring was actually because he was Bush’s cousin, and therefore was on “stand-by” to take action , just in case it was a close election. Moore also puts forth the notion that Ellis was the one who made the decision to “call the election” for Bush.

Indeed, if all you ever knew about the Florida vote was gleaned from the few minutes Moore dedicated to it in his movie, you’d surely think that this was certainly a “gotcha”. It set the tone for the rest of the movie. Moore says: “ What most people don’t know...” insinuating that he was somehow responsible for digging up this secret information, especially for you. This first dramatic “revelation” in the film lures the viewer in to an expectation of a movie full of “gotchas”. Moore obliged with more stories, and the average liberal viewer was in for a ride beyond their wildest left-wingy dreams.
The average liberal viewer, or most viewers for that matter wouldn’t bother to take three hours out of their busy schedule to google and read all of the available information concerning Ellis, Bush, Fox, and the 2000 election.

Luckily for you, your humble servant Paratrooper has done it for you.

Here is the rest of the story, as best I can tell.

John Ellis is indeed the first cousin of GW and JEB Bush. (Incidently, JEB stands for John Ellis Bush, GW’s brother’s real name.) He is also a professional election results analyst. For the past 23 years, he has been an analyst for several elections, in fact prior to the 2000 election, he was an analyst for NBC news for over 10 years. He wasn’t just given a weekend gig from Fox because he was a relative, he was actually one of the most experienced election analysts in the country. Betcha didn’t know that , did you?

The next part of this particular fabrication is that Moore gives the impression that Ellis is the guy who got to decide what to tell the anchors in their earpieces. More portrays him as a sort of “lone gunman” type” who simply took matters into to his own hands to report the election results as he wished the would be, rather than how they were being reported from VNS.

Wait a gol-durn minute! Who the hell is VNS ,and what are they doing reporting the election results? Sit tight, I’ll tell you.

VNS is Voter News Service. For over a quarter century , these guys are the single source for exit polling information that ALL of the major news outlets use. ABC,CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and yes, FOXNEWS too. VNS issues reports to all of the news channels at the same time. It is a tradition to hope to be the first to receive the returns, and report them to the public. Everyone wants those bragging rights in the world of election coverage. Right or wrong, it’s just a fact that this nuance of news reporting played a huge role in the events of that night in 2000. VNS has since gone out of business because of the unreliable service they delivered in 2000.

The other part of the misconception Moore puts forth is that he lets the responsibility sit squarely I the lap of Ellis Bush. Why? Because if you only tell that part of the story, it makes the situation look as bad as possible, which is Moore’s ultimate goal. What Moore does so often is commit the sin of omission , and this story is no exception.

John Ellis was part of a four person team called the “decision desk” team. This doesn’t mean they make any decisions about who should be president, rather they analyze the incoming reports on the “decision” itself, it the context of the cable news header : DECISION 2000. While Ellis was the director of the desk, any information that was to be passed on to anyone was to be unanimously agreed upon by his colleagues John Gorman, Arnon Mishkin and Cynthia Talkov. John Gorman is the President of Opinon Dymanics , a leading national pollster, and an expert on polling data analysis. Cynthia Talkov works for Opinion Dynamics. Dr. Arnon Mishkin is from the Boston Consulting Group, another expert. Now when these four experts received the returns from VNS, they would have to decide of the results were clear enough to make a recommendation to John Moody, FoxNews Vice President of News Editorial.
If Moody then felt the recommendation was accurate he would then pass it on to the anchors for broadcast. So, as you can see, there was sufficient oversight and expertise which led to the calling of the election for Bush. It might seem a bit obnoxious to point out, but after the recounts , it would seem that VNS, Ellis, his team members, and his boss all ended up making an accurate call. Bush did win.

Moore’s conspiracy becomes very threadbare when you consider the following facts:

1) Ellis was a professional election results analyst with 23 years of experience.
2) Ellis worked previously for NBC for 10 years.
3) Eliis actually called the GHW Bush/ Clinton election against his uncle, GHW Bush.
4) Ellis was part of a 4 person team of experts , who required a unanimous recommendation before sending it to Moody.
5) John Moody had the final approval / veto power over the recommendation
6) The data used by Ellis and his team was delivered from VNS
7) All of the other news outlets received the same data at the same time
8) The other news outlets delivered the same results within 4 minutes of Fox’s report.

Conclusion:
Despite the fact that Fox reported first, citing the results from the same source as the other news organizations, it seem very unlikely that the others made their decision based on “what Fox was reporting”. If the VNS data had shown otherwise, the wouldn’t have reported it the same exact way at basically the same exact time. Moore’s analysis is wrong and misleading.

source