The Telegraph posted this today, and yes, Gore took the election by a large margin. However, due to the state of "war" we are in, they are holding off the possible illegalities of a stolen election and an insurgent President.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/22/world/world14.html

Media suppress the news that Bush lost election to Gore
By Charles Laurence in Washington

The most detailed analysis yet of the contested Florida votes from last
year's presidential election - with the potential to question President
George Bush's legitimacy - is being withheld by the news organisations that
commissioned it.

Results of the inspection of more than 170,000 votes rejected as unreadable
in the "hanging chad" chaos of last November's vote count were ready at the
end of August.

The study was commissioned early this year by a consortium including The Wall
Street Journal, The Washington Post and The New York Times and the
broadcaster CNN. The cost was more than $A2million.

Now, however, spokesmen for the consortium say that they decided to postpone
the story of the analysis by the National Opinion Research Centre at the
University of Chicago for lack of resources and lack of interest in the face
of the enormous story after the September11 attacks.

Newspapers were saying last week that the final phase of the analysis,
counting the 170,000 votes, had been postponed.

"Our belief is that the priorities of the country have changed, and our
priorities have changed," said Steven Goldstein, vice-president of corporate
communications at Dow Jones, owner of The Wall Street Journal.

Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times, said: "The consortium
agreed that because of the war, because of our lack of resources, we were
postponing the vote-count investigation. But this is not final. The intention
is to go forward."

However David Podvin, an investigative journalist who runs an independent Web
page, Make Them Accountable, said he had been tipped off that the consortium
was covering up the results.

He refused to disclose his source other than to describe him as a former
media executive whom he knew "as an accurate conduit of information" and who
claimed that the consortium "is deliberately hiding the results of its
recount because [former Democrat vice-president Al] Gore was the indisputable
winner".

He also claims that a New York Times journalist involved in the recount
project had told "a former companion" that the Gore victory margin was big
enough to create "major trouble for the Bush presidency if this ever gets
out".

"The goosiness, the sensitivity, that the press which organised this analysis
is now showing to publishing the results and the persistence of questions
about the Florida ballots raise questions," said Dr John Mason, a professor
of political science at William Paterson University, in New Jersey.

"There is a sensitivity over the legitimacy of this president."

National Opinion Research Centre staff have been puzzled by the idea that the
media would lack the resources because, they said, they had computer programs
already designed and fitted for the final count.

The Telegraph, London