I’m no expert, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I recognize errors in reporting when I see them, and a prominent North Carolina-based news outlet had many of them in their recent article about their status NC Supreme Court race.
As we’ve documented, there were some strange twists in this race that resulted in Republican Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin finishing about 10,000 votes ahead of his Democratic opponent, state Supreme Court Justice Allison, the day after the election Riggs, won, only to find that he was behind by 722 votes after the election boards completed their poll about two weeks later on November 20th Results page at the time of writing this article, whose last submission/upload date for the county is 11/20. is).
READ MORE: The strange and unacceptable twists in the North Carolina Supreme Court race
With the recount currently underway, here is the state of play as of Wednesday, November 27th at 3:39 p.m. – that was the last update this week Recount table PDF provided by the BOE.
92 of North Carolina’s 100 counties have completed their recounts, and the recount so far has resulted in Griffin receiving 91 votes. Given the closeness of the race, this is not an insignificant number.
But you wouldn’t know any of this if you read WRAL’s 11/27 coverage. would read, which contained several factual errors that are surprising given the experienced state government reporters who wrote the story and who are very familiar with state politics and operations here.
We start with this paragraph (I grease the wrong parts):
Before the recount, Riggs led by 625 votes from more than 5.5 million ballots cast. After nearly all counties completed their recounts As of Wednesday afternoon, According to the still unofficial results of the state elections, their lead had increased slightly to 722 votes.
Recounts sometimes result in a handful of votes being added or subtracted from a candidate’s total due to errors by voters or the machines that read the ballots.
CLAIM: “Before the recount, Riggs was ahead by 625 votes.” […] “On Wednesday afternoon, according to the still unofficial state election results, their lead had increased slightly to 722 votes.”
VERDICT: Both claims are false. As we already reported, the districts completed their acquisition (belatedly) on Wednesday, November 20th. Riggs rose 722 from this day onwardswhich, in turn, is consistent with what is currently before the state election board website There will be November 20th. listed as the last time an update was made to their website. And to reiterate a point I made earlier: The recount on Wednesday (11/27) before Thanksgiving had given Griffin 91 votes.
Your friend alerted one of the story’s reporters, Will Doran, to the issues involved – including receipts – on the Twitter/X machine, but I have yet to receive a response. The other reporter in the story, Laura Leslie, WRAL’s Capitol Bureau chief, protected her tweets but, like other left-leaning journalists, fled to Bluesky, where She advertises the story there, although it contains some inaccuracies:
Are you sure about these numbers? According to the chart everyone was following at the time, Riggs was at 11/20. with 722 points in front. This number matches what is on the BOE website, which shows the last update was on 11/20. occurred, by a margin of 722. Based on the recount PDF, Griffin… pic.twitter.com/aSQzy58AWm
— Sister Toldjah 💙 (@sistertoldjah) November 29, 2024
This is a screenshot of it Recount PDF table The BOE updates regularly to show that Riggs (the left column) lost 73 votes and Griffin won 18, giving him a net gain of 91:
Here I have the net 91 number (according to the recount PDF update from 11/27 at 3:39 p.m.) https://t.co/XUlejcTgpT pic.twitter.com/V8vqtReFjn
— Sister Toldjah 💙 (@sistertoldjah) November 29, 2024
Here’s a paragraph that attempted to downplay the counties’ changes as a result of the recount, which they described as “minor”:
So far, the changes noted in this recount have been minor. Wake County’s recount added six votes for Riggs and six votes for Griffin, resulting in no net change in the results. The recount in Durham County removed 14 votes from Riggs and 13 votes from Griffin, resulting in a net change of one vote in favor of Griffin. Many other counties reported no changes at all for either candidate.
While it’s true that some counties like Wake and Durham were basically evenly split between Riggs and Griffin in terms of “wins/losses,” some other counties weighed pretty clearly in Griffin’s favor, including Cabarrus, where Riggs won three, Griffin however, 12 (net nine). for him). At Surry, Griffin won six. In Person County, Riggs won two and Griffin won eight, giving him a net win of six.
Again, while the numbers are miniature, they are significant considering how close this race is. Why not include this information instead of making it seem like not much has changed in the race when Griffin has actually received 91 votes so far in this process?
A true statement is that the recount will not exaggerate him. That’s what Griffin’s campaign is doing with the election protests he held on November 20th. submitted will achieve he is challenged approximately 60,000 votes on the grounds that some were either felons who were serving their sentences at the time they voted, voted early but died before Election Day, had false/incomplete voter registration information, or did not provide photo ID (in connection with absence abroad). ballot paper).
It remains to be seen how this will all play out and whether further legal challenges lie ahead. What is a mystery, however, is why this story from WRAL contains the factual errors it contains, which really does a disservice to readers looking for right information about the state of the race. I know this was a holiday week, but there’s a gigantic difference between a vacation from work and a vacation from reporting the facts.
RELATED –>> Report: The politically incestuous relationship between North Carolina Democrats and the local media continues
