I'm not a smart enough Googler to figure it out, but how did the press coverage of Saddam's "election," in which he won 99% of the vote, compare to today's? Which did the MSM think the bigger story, and by how much?

[Update on Friday morning]

Little Green Footballs has an example.

[Update at 9 AM]

Here's a roundup from last January of how credulous many in the media were about Saddam's "election":

While the network news gurus have spent weeks questioning whether Sunday’s elections in Iraq would (A) occur on time or (B) be accepted as legitimate, it’s important to remember that when Saddam Hussein called a vote in October 2002 as coalition troops moved into place, ABC, CNN, and NBC accepted the dictator’s “100 percent” vote as a credible plebiscite, not a joke. To his credit CBS’s Tom Fenton explained why everyone voted aye: “You would be foolish not to — a U.N. human rights report said 500 people were jailed in the last referendum after casting a negative ballot.” But other networks, desperate for access into Saddam’s Iraq, played dumb and parroted the dictator’s script...

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 15, 2005 06:11 PM