Firstly, the fact that the NYP "figured out how to do it" was because Rudy Giuliani refused to provide the laptop's contents to anyone outside the Rupert Murdoch owned news complex (Fox News, The Post, WSJ). It was almost like he was trying to make it look suspicious, and it sure as hell did. Legitimate media had nothing to go on, and we…
Firstly, the fact that the NYP "figured out how to do it" was because Rudy Giuliani refused to provide the laptop's contents to anyone outside the Rupert Murdoch owned news complex (Fox News, The Post, WSJ). It was almost like he was trying to make it look suspicious, and it sure as hell did. Legitimate media had nothing to go on, and were right to treat it cautiously as an unconfirmed story.
Secondly, Berliner's phrasing does not make it at all clear what he means about "finding" 87 Democrats and 0 Republicans. It sure makes it sound like he had some sort of easy access to everyone's voter registration in DC and found an 87-0 split. If that's not the case, then it's a bit hard to interpret what his comment means. Did he do a random sample? If not, how did he choose the people he investigated? Is it possible that people registered as Republican make it more difficult to determine, perhaps choosing not to specify in places where asked (DC is a pretty Democrat-leaning place after all)? He may have had a legitimate point here, but he was uninformative at best and misleading at worst.
Firstly, the fact that the NYP "figured out how to do it" was because Rudy Giuliani refused to provide the laptop's contents to anyone outside the Rupert Murdoch owned news complex (Fox News, The Post, WSJ). It was almost like he was trying to make it look suspicious, and it sure as hell did. Legitimate media had nothing to go on, and were right to treat it cautiously as an unconfirmed story.
Secondly, Berliner's phrasing does not make it at all clear what he means about "finding" 87 Democrats and 0 Republicans. It sure makes it sound like he had some sort of easy access to everyone's voter registration in DC and found an 87-0 split. If that's not the case, then it's a bit hard to interpret what his comment means. Did he do a random sample? If not, how did he choose the people he investigated? Is it possible that people registered as Republican make it more difficult to determine, perhaps choosing not to specify in places where asked (DC is a pretty Democrat-leaning place after all)? He may have had a legitimate point here, but he was uninformative at best and misleading at worst.