I find it strange that the article claims that Western Union&#x27;s manipulation of coverage influenced Hayes&#x27; election, since as any worthwhile student of American history ought to know, the election of 1876 was marred by far, far worse facts. Hayes actually lost the popular vote, but this needs to be tempered by the fact that both sides engaged in voter fraud and intimidation (e.g., Democratic ballots being printed to fool illiterate voters (i.e., Southern blacks) into thinking they were voting Republican). Partisan electoral commissions duly responded by throwing out ballots to make sure the electoral votes went the right way.<p>The Democratic House balked at accepting these results, while the Republican Senate claimed it didn&#x27;t matter what the House thought when it came time to officially count the votes. This crisis was resolved by creating a commission, but the Democrats decided to try to buy the vote of the only true independent, who responded by showing surprising integrity and immediately resigning, which left the commission with having to choose the most supposedly impartial Republican member of the court to cast the swing vote, which was finished only two days before the inauguration.<p>In the face of all of that, claiming that Western Union support was decisive in landing Hayes the presidential office is intellectually dishonest.