There was controversy during the primary elections for the 2000 presidential campaign in the United States when World Wide Web sites published exit poll findings while the polls were still open. The debate the ensued generally pitched the "old" and "new" media against each other.
Internet journalists argued that the exit poll data circulated widely among journalists and political insiders. All they were doing was making it available to the public.
Traditional media representatives argued, on the contrary, that journalists often held material that was embargoed on the understanding that they did not use it. The danger in publishing exit poll data while voting was still continuing was that it might influence some voters not to cast their ballot, either because it was unnecessary, with their candidate already winning, or futile, with their candidate not standing a chance.
Some Internet journalists described the traditional approach as paternalistic. Another was quoted as saying:
We're reporting on things that people tell us -- that's what journalists do. I think it's ridiculous that these goo-goo good government types don't trust the public with certain information. If knowing who's ahead deters some people from voting, I'm not sure they should be voting in the first place.122
The traditional view on not reporting exit poll findings (or actual results) is on the basis that widely disseminated information of this sort could actually affect election results - aside from being inconsiderate to voters who have no yet cast their ballot. On the other hand, the Internet is different from traditional media in that a potential voter would probably have to seek out such information actively rather than accidentally seeing it on the television or hearing it on the radio.
In the US case, the offending Internet journalists backed down under the threat of a law suit but felt that they had made their point. But perhaps the only safe conclusion from this episode is that clearer guidelines are needed.
