Media is ignoring Ron Paul? Prove it...

reply to post by bacci0909


I posted this right before bed and am leaving now for work. Will get back to this thread in about 12 hours

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

BTW....

Google Search: News

Ron Paul, Google Search: News
About 9,420 results (0.17 seconds)

Mitt Romney
About 16,300 results (0.16 seconds)

Rick Perry
About 19,400 results (0.16 seconds)

Herman Cain
About 23,500 results (0.18 seconds)

Yet, Bill O'Reilly and others accuse Ron Paul supporters of having the largest internet support and skewing the polls and causing ruckus all around. If Ron Paul has the biggest internet showing then why does a Google searh show him with half of the internet mentions of Herman Cain and Rick Perry?

It tells me two things.
#1. Bill O'Reilly is sorely mistaken and should be boycotted for intentionally skewing his own polls.
#2. Ron Paul supporters are not yet doing a good enough job of spreading the facts about Ron Paul. We should all be creating threads, blogs, youtube videos, and also speaking to our friends and family and making sure people understand his real positions and not just the negative sound bites.

Originally posted by jcord
reply to post by Athin

 

Mind controlled paulbots are programmed to say that...over and over and over and over and....

OR independently-thinking 'paulbots' might have run analysis from all the debates of the number of questions asked each candidate and talk-time allowed, paid attention to the Pew Research and other studies confirming it, seen Jerry Day's analysis of news coverage compared to web traffic (this one's very interesting, especially in light of all the newsworthy aspects of the '08 campaign), and the media's own admissions.

Calling names and casting insults to disregard facts has never done anyone much good, aside from helping resolve feelings of dissonance or merely reinforcing one's preconceived notions - and neither of these works to deny ignorance.

Take care.

I was watching the local news broadcast a while back and they were talking Ron Paul because he was in the local area, but the funny thing was, they did not show his picture only the other candidates pictures were shown.

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia
The mere existence of bafoons like herman cain and rick perry are proof that the media will do anything not to cover relevant, important issues, much less push RP's views.


I watch and follow the news propaganda machine. I can see its trends and cycles and patterns. It starts out mild and in the beginning they at least covered Ron Paul. problem was everytime he had a chance to interview that dumb blonde on fox news would ask him the most ridiculous questions (one time regarding a letter to his election campaign office asking if he was gay and kissed rick perry on the lips or something...) of course, all just antics to waste air time and not let his ideas escape.

They did the same thing with the OWS movement and now the propaganda is in full swing. it started out by not covering it at all, then it got so big they HAD to cover it.
So they put negative spin on it any way they could, but they couldnt single out a leader so they attacked the "message" which was accusing the movement of NOT having a central organized idea.
When that became OWS strength, the media started planting A HOLES in civilian clothing and instigating turmoil.
I also saw footage of cops disguised in civilian clothing picking fights with protesters so the nypd could intervene.
Then the provoked attacks with gas, and riot gear, guns..
then accusations of rape, murder and you know how it goes from there.... all since the beginning of the movement until now.

You had me until the rant about the OWS movement. It's not accusations when it can be proven.

reply to post by maddog99


I wasn't asking anyone to do homework for me. I was simply saying if you guys want to make claims you should back them up. Aside from the Cain scandal going on right now I see every candidate about the same amount of time.

Like I said in the OP I don't regularly watch the news. I said "when I do" my observations are not what others see.

Same amount of time?? Ar you serious? Did you even watch the debate on CBS the other night? Ron Paul was given a total of 89 seconds to speak in a 90 minute debate. Everyone had more time. This is also verified by a study from the University of Minnesota which you can get the full story and results of at the link below.

Ron Paul being media bias

and here is another link discussing Ron Paul's 89 seconds of speaking time on CBS

Ron Paul 89 seconds

It took me a minute but here you can watch the debate yourself and judge for yourself. Watch it and tell me if Ron Paul was given equal time with others on this stage.

CBS Debate in South Carolina

To the OP, you really think this many people will be saying there is a media bias against Ron Paul and just made it up?

news.yahoo.com...

Ron Paul loyalists have been vindicated. After months of observations that the mainstream media was ignoring the libertarian standard-bearer, a new study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows just that: the Texas Congressman, who has consistently polled in the high single digits -- Real Clear Politics's aggregate poll currently has him at 8 percent -- has received the least overall coverage of any candidate. From May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the "primary newsmaker in only 2% of all election stories."

He's also received the lowest average response time in all of the GOP debates and he has never once been at or near the bottom of the polls. Now that Ron Paul has been launched into front runner status in Iowa and New Hampshire due to hard work, good organization and superb fundraising, pay attention to the debates where he still gets the shaft.

reply to post by Athin



There are rapes in murders in NYC every day, where is the media every other day on those? just because some of those bottom feeders were able to navigate to camp doesnt mean that they were necessarily participating in the protest or even aware of what the protest was about.

Of course in any huge group like OWS their are going to be stragglers and bums committing crime. Maybe if the cops weren't such boneheads they could spend their time weaving out the real criminals instead of attacking helpless elderly women, our own veterans, and individuals exercising their rights to the first amendment.

Originally posted by Athin
reply to post by maddog99

 

I see every candidate about the same amount of time.

investmentwatchblog.com... -time-than-the-other-candidates-during-the-debates/

"The following is how one blog broke down the talking time for the Republican debate on CBS on Saturday night….

Rick Perry 7:45

Mitt Romney 6:30

Newt Gingrich 6:00

Herman Cain 5:45

Rick Santorum 5:15

Jon Huntsman 3:30

Michele Bachmann 3:15

Ron Paul 1:30"

"The following is a statistical average of the talking time during the six major Republican debates there have been hosted by CBS, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and CNBC during the months of September, October and November. The raw data for this analysis was originally compiled by We Occupy The Web and Wes Hemings. Jon Huntsman only has data for five debates because he boycotted one. As you can see, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have received much, much more talking time during the debates than the other candidates, and Ron Paul has gotten the least talking time of all….

Mitt Romney (6:30 15:11 14:47 12:09 10:56 11:57) - 11.91 minutes

Rick Perry (7:45 11:01 07:25 11:10 13:54 14:59) - 11.03 minutes

Michele Bachmann (3:15 09:58 06:50 6:13 8:35 9:05) - 7.32 minutes

Newt Gingrich (6:00 07:53 09:10 5:44 7:32 6:53) - 7.20 minutes

Jon Huntsman (3:30 07:54 7:41 7:50 8:52) - 7.16 minutes

Herman Cain (5:45 09:06 08:23 6:23 5:42 5:41) - 6.83 minutes

Rick Santorum (5:15 09:50 05:25 7:06 7:06 6:11) - 6.81 minutes

Ron Paul (1:30 10:05 07:27 4:33 7:34 9:19) - 6.75 minutes"

www.journalism.org...

"The same could be said of the narrative in the news media of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who received the least coverage of any candidate overall (although from July on, Newt Gingrich received less coverage than Paul did). The difference with Paul is that he has received, by far, the most favorable coverage of any candidate in the blogosphere—48% positive and only 15% negative."

www.theatlanticwire.com...

"Ron Paul loyalists have been vindicated. After months of observations that the mainstream media was ignoring the libertarian standard-bearer, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism shows just that: the Texas Congressman, who has consistently polled in the high single digits — Real Clear Politics’s aggregate poll currently has him at 8 percent — has received the least overall coverage of any candidate. From May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the “primary newsmaker" in only 2% of all election stories."

OP, What channel are you watching?

Of course the media's bagging down Ron Paul. He gets ninety seconds of speaking time at an hour and a half-long debate? Most of which is consumed by the other dribbling idiots trying to make good reality TV? Media outlets are outright passing the dude over.

I wouldn't vote for the guy if he was running against a cabbage with a Hitler moustache, but damn, even I can see it going on.

My question is... if that were to change... if suddenly he became the "lead candidate," how long would support from his followers remain? Because the vibe I get from a lot of them seems to be that htye only admire the guy because they perceive him as "an outsider." Sort of like how hipsters will abandon bands if htey get a contract, will Ron Paul's sycophants jump ship if he becomes "a contender"?

reply to post by Athin


But my point is the claims have been backed up here so much already it's getting kinda old.
Next time, maybe refrain from the "prove it" title and stick to asking questions politely without making it sound like a challenge and more people, including myself will be more than happy to answer them.
Also, search can be your best friend here.
Peace

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

My question is... if that were to change... if suddenly he became the "lead candidate," how long would support from his followers remain? Because the vibe I get from a lot of them seems to be that htye only admire the guy because they perceive him as "an outsider." Sort of like how hipsters will abandon bands if htey get a contract, will Ron Paul's sycophants jump ship if he becomes "a contender"?

That is a GREAT question!! Obama was an outsider with tons of support until he won. Now, he is an insider with a terrible approval rating.

I guess it would depend on Ron Paul's actions. If he went in and suddenly started celebrating every weak ass compromise as a win, then he would lose my support very quickly. I don't vote for somebody that has plans of grandeur so that they will immediately soften up and play party politics and celebrate their bipartisanship. I vote for somebody that actually wants to see their plans through to fruition.

There are many of the Tea Party candidates from 2010 that have turned out to be disappointments. Obama turned out to be a disappointment. If Ron Paul follows that typical path of Campaigning on the extreme Right or Left and then immediately jumping to the Middle once elected, then he will lose my support very quickly. If he follows his record of 30 years and sticks exactly to the Constitution and stays in the press pressuring Congress to enact his campaign agenda, then he will go down in history with Washington, Lincoln, Teddy, Truman, and JFK as one of our best presidents ever.

Talk of the Nation yesterday:

HARWOOD: Exactly. And I think one of the reasons for that is I'm imagining from the perspective of my colleagues at CBS and National Journal, is that Ron Paul, for all intents and purposes, is not a Republican, especially on those issues, and for that reason I think people accurately see him - this is one way of being responsive to the caller's question, why doesn't Ron Paul get covered more, is because in the estimation of most people who follow this process, his chances of winning the Republican nomination are essentially nil.

And if that's the case, then you've got to wonder, like, is your debate most usefully spent by voters on candidates with a greater chance to win. We have - during our debate, we had people, a team of people in our production truck tracking the amount of airtime that each candidate got and using that to guide us to make sure that we didn't leave anybody too short. Rick Santorum got the least at five and a half minutes. Mitt Romney got almost 10 minutes. And that to some degree reflects their prospects in the race. You focus on the people with a greater chance.

Ron Paul has run as a libertarian for president. He has said he might not support the Republican nominee. Yes, he has a respectable chunk in the polls, but I think his chances of building on that are quite small and that influences how reporters view him.

Summary: we the media are ignoring Paul because he has no chance and we dont think he's what the public wants to hear about since he isnt really Republican anyway.
Link

John Harwood

John Harwood is Chief Washington Correspondent of CNBC and a political writer for the New York Times.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


They have a valid point there. He is a bit of a thorn in the Republican party's side. He has said he may not support the nominated candidate. He might run as an Independent or Libertarian. I guess in that way, they are a little bit justified in locking him out of their nomination process.

The fact is, if they don't nominate him as their candidate, then they cannot beat Obama. Plain and Simple. #1, none of the other candidates that have a chance of winning are significantly different than Obama. #2, if Paul runs on a 3rd Party ticket, he will bleed off many of the GOP votes, and it will destroy their chances.

So, I don't blame them for not wanting to support him, he is their Achille's Heal. He points out everything that is wrong with their party, and he holds the party's chances of a win hostage. It is almost blackmail. He is in a position to say "Nominate me, or lose the general election."

Still. If the GOP really examined what they are supposed to stand for, they would support him. Actually, for that matter, if the Democrats really examined what they are supposed to stand for, they would support him also!