Project to expose MSM blackout of Dr Paul's campaign

[lastnymleft]

Here are a couple of pretty pictures to get you interested in the thread. It's IMPORTANT to read it and get involved here:
Dr Paul's coverage last week - 0.2% - was too small to even put on the graph:
http://www.journalism.org/files/u26/race_for_media_Exposure_final_0.png

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/9886/mediaexposurebycandidatnz7.jpg
John McCain received EIGHTY FIVE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Rudy Giuliani received SIXTY NINE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Mitt Romney received FIFTY NINE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Mike Huckabee received THIRTY TWO TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Fred Thompson received TWENTY FIVE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.

For the record, Barack Obama received TWO HUNDRED AND SEVEN TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Hillary Clinton was close behind, receiving TWO HUNDRED AND TWO TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.

****************
Original post:

I'm working on something that will hopefully enable us to fight back against the MSM shutdown of Dr Paul's campaign. Specifically, I've been talking to a media monitoring service, with the aim of them producing a report(s) that exposes the deliberate MSM media blackout of Dr Paul's campaign. Their records for the last 12+ months can be analysed in aggregate, or on a daily basis, and be exposed for being the warmongering statist shill scum that they are. Recall last Nov (or Dec?) CNN's Situation Room showed a 2-column chart of Dr Paul's coverage, versus McCains. McCain had achieved ~20x the coverage (~4,500 mentions versus ~95,000 mentions), despite not being the anointed candidate at that time. Clinton and Giuliani were, and would have been many times more the number of mentions, again. Similar sort of stuff, but I expect it to be much more damning, as CNN would have filtered out the worst before showing us.

I can get glossy reports, but I really want to get the raw data for distribution far and wide, and let it get picked over, dissected, analysed, and re-presented, by any and all that want. Let's throw some sunshine on this sordid cesspool that call themselves the media! Get it into the blogosphere, and media activist groups, and try to get as much distribution and press as possible. This is something that *may* be able to be done in the next few days (payment issues notwithstanding), perhaps even before Florida. Definitely should be able to get it released and mass circulated prior to Super Tuesday. Americans need to know that Dr Paul has not been given a "fair go". They are already recently conditioned to know that that is the case, because of the hubbub around being excluded from Fox's New Hampshire debate. This hard evidence will seal the deal, and - hopefully - cause mass outrage, and actions.

It'd be great to be able to follow up with some full-page press ads, just prior to Super Tuesday, as well, but that's going to be tight, timewise. Could we raise the dollars quickly enough?

I don't know how much the report will cost. That is still to be resolved. It sounds like we'll get a good deal ,though. They suggested just a bit above cost, as they would also sell the collated data to others, as well. I'd like to have some spare to enable setting up a *daily* (or *at least* weekly) data download of their figures, if possible, so that we can monitor the MSM - and respond to them, as appropriate, on a quick response basis. Pretty soon, I think we will see that this could become so hot for them that they modify their behavior. Maybe. Hopefully.

I'd like to say "Donate for this Here", but I can't. It's not set up yet. I need to partner up with a PAC willing to take this on - and quickly. Any PAC reps with a track record of such activities? (Sorry - timeframes require such). We'll be needing chip-in dollars pretty quickly, so subscribe to this thread, and stay atuned, please.

One thing I do want help on, NOW, from the grassroots, is to put together a scope of works for these guys, just defining exactly what it is that we want to know. They've got an enormous database already. It's just a matter of extracting the right data. It'll be a day or two's work for them.

So, what sort of metrics should we be asking for? Here are a few rough thoughts off the top of my head. Please suggest more / modifications.

- Aggregate number of mentions in last 12 months by candidate remaining (both R and D). (I actually want to include Dennis Kucinich, too, to prove that it's not just Dr Paul that has been shafted.)

- Mentions of each candidate by day, by source (there will be hundreds of such)

We can get such raw numbers out pretty quickly. We can also dig a little deeper, and look at things like how favorable was the coverage? "Sentiment" and "Tonality" are the key words for such, apparently. How many had disparaging terms such as "long-shot", "quixotic", "kooky", etc.? Digging deeper will take more time, and cost more, though.

Oh, and cop this: I pressed him on the question of whether we could determine for sure whether polls lead coverage, or coverage leads polls. They've looked at this before, and it is THE LATTER. That is, the McCain and Huckabee buildup in Nov-Dec was deliberate, with the MSM creating the steep rises in support. We all knew that, of course, but now we'll be able to expose such.


This is a time-sensitive project. Maximum impact will be achieved if we finish this in time for Super Tuesday. Please provide your thoughts, most particularly on scope of works metrics that we seek.

[Ex Post Facto]

* Timing of release of polls

* Timing of release of Causus results (The whole Nevada thing not being decided until S. Carolina had voted thing got my attention). It had to be the longest count ever.

* Polls they chose to use, vs. polls available

[Talcott]

The blackout should be the story of the blahgosphere.


Timmy mic Russert did his job.

[Energy]

* Polls excluding Paul

* Anytime they mention all GOP candidates except RP

* Edited replays, like the CNN/Youtube debate

[ValidusCustodiae]

Make a documentary out of this similar to Freedom to Fascism.

[xCakex]

Blimp! Important for all the lesser known candidates in the future!

[Thunderbolt]

Can you give us a ballpark? Are we talking hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands?

Depending on the cost I would be behind an idea like this.

[ionlyknowy]

we can have an endless amount of damning evidence like this but unless we gain access to a way to disseminate the info to the masses then it will only have marginal effect.

The one thing that the MSM has that we probably can never have is unlimited NATIONAL air time with a HUGE audience.

They have years of reputation of being a national news outlet.



Even if we were to run an ad nationally, you would have to repeat the ad three times per day for a week to get the same effect as the MSM. This would cost over $60 million for sure...

[lastnymleft]

Can you give us a ballpark? Are we talking hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands?

Depending on the cost I would be behind an idea like this.

Well, he said 1-2 days work, and "near cost". A group like this would have big overheads, monitoring everything (they have a lot of offices, too). More than 200 television stations, plus print thereafter. I was figuring maybe up to $5,000 for the initial report, but ongoing. I was going to get a PAC to start a chip-in for $10,000, so that we can ensure we get data on a daily(?) basis into the future, and can be very reactionary with hitting outlets for unfair exposure.

I'll know costs tomorrow. But, by then, I'll want to have actually started the process, so stay tuned in the morning for the chip-in details.

Keep the metrics coming. The polls might be difficult to pull out of databases. Think more about the textural coverage. What metrics would be good comparisons to show bias?

[lastnymleft]

we can have an endless amount of damning evidence like this but unless we gain access to a way to disseminate the info to the masses then it will only have marginal effect.

The one thing that the MSM has that we probably can never have is unlimited NATIONAL air time with a HUGE audience.

They have years of reputation of being a national news outlet.



Even if we were to run an ad nationally, you would have to repeat the ad three times per day for a week to get the same effect as the MSM. This would cost over $60 million for sure...

We can:
- Hit the blogs, massively
- Hit the activist groups - there are media critics that like this stuff
- Buy full-page ad in a national paper, like USA Today, on Super Tuesday, or the preceding Monday.
- Push for our LOCAL media outlets to run with the story. Even fox affiliates have been pretty fair in their coverage, as they are not ruled by Fox National. They may give good coverage if it couched in general terms, rather than specifically attacking their own associate.
- Etc. Thoughts on distribution? How about mailouts to all the donors in states still to have primaries? Jan 31 that data will be released.

[ionlyknowy]

We can:
- Hit the blogs, massively
- Hit the activist groups - there are media critics that like this stuff
- Buy full-page ad in a national paper, like USA Today, on Super Tuesday, or the preceding Monday.
- Push for our LOCAL media outlets to run with the story. Even fox affiliates have been pretty fair in their coverage, as they are not ruled by Fox National. They may give good coverage if it couched in general terms, rather than specifically attacking their own associate.
- Etc. Thoughts on distribution? How about mailouts to all the donors in states still to have primaries? Jan 31 that data will be released.

Yeah, the only thing is.. a full page ad in a national newspaper last I heard cost $85,000 for 1 day.

I seriously doubt news stations will give any coverage to an exposee of their self.

I love the project, but the only prob. is getting the word out. Just like Paul's name, people just dont know it... People run around spewing info they hear on the MSM... it's kind of sad really...

I really hate this... it's like we are trapped in a box and are screaming at the rest of the world...

If we post it on blogs then we will be talking to the same people that we usually talk to... of course with some exceptions.

But for this to have national appeal, you really need the MSM or have RP give the info at a debate. But even then, they edit out the things they dont like for future airings.

See, the MSM knows that time is not on our side. They know that if they continue editing and ignoring then by the time the primaries have come and gone not enough people will have awaken.

See, every time something like this gets posted on a blog, or mentioned in an ad, or put in a newspaper, or whatever spurt of news you can think of, we gain a small percentage of people to the revolution. If we had enough time, then eventually everyone would join the revolution. BUT we dont have time on our side. So we NEED the MSM for quick dissemination. It's sad but true.

[Richandler]

There are lots and lots of subtleties that they do such as not mentioning or forgetting to mention or merely uttering "long shot." There are a lot more than this. The documentary could be huge considering so many people have already witnessed it first hand.

[ionlyknowy]

There are lots and lots of subtleties that they do such as not mentioning or forgetting to mention or merely uttering "long shot." There are a lot more than this. The documentary could be huge considering so many people have already witnessed it first hand.

Yeah, it would be an interesting documentary.

I really hope someone makes an independent film about this campaign once this is all said and done.

It could include all of the antics.. such as Luntz focus groups with the same people, and with RP signs in the background outside... the Nevada 2nd place finish, with Fox not even mentioning him... etc.

It would probably make TONS of money. AND win the sundance film festival.

If anyone wants to do it, I could help with the info, I have been following this since Sept or so... I am sure there are TONS of others that could do it too.. Maybe we should contact some Indy film makers. It wouldnt help his campaign now, but the freedom movement and next pres. election would get a huge bump.

[DirtMcGirt]

we should start talking about about a secret internet forum that the MSM doesn't know about... let's start referring about the grey internet that no one knows about...

[FreedomLiberty]

Good initiative. Include all big news organizations including AP.

[lastnymleft]

Some really good suggestions there, about the AP and other such media orgs, and the subtle wording such as "Long-shot". The other one is the Independent question. He must have had that a hundred times by now.

$85,000 is very doable to get an ad happening. It takes time though, and we are short on that.


There's already an indie film being made. Not specifically of the r3V0Lution, but of media bias. European guy with the nym "Anarchy". He was the one that got the New York Times to include Dr Paul, and bump Rudy, on their Results page, just last week. He threatened to include them in the film, and they had it changed within 1.5 hours!

[BigRedBrent]

Make a documentary out of this similar to Freedom to Fascism.

No, it must be short enough to go into an add or most people will never watch it. Most people are sheep, learn what sheeple will watch and learn from.

I mean in a nut shell the world is full of stupid people, and the sad thing is that a heck of a lot of them think it is a civic duty to vote even if they don't know why they are voting.

[BigRedBrent]

At first I did not think this was a good idea but then I started to try to think like a sheeple. I am so used to already knowing all this because it is so blatantly obvious if you don't get your news from just the main stream media. A sheeple would have no idea this was going on and would be shocked to find this out if he had half a brain in his sheeple head.

[ionlyknowy]

If RP loses then we could name the Indy film based on the campaign...
"The Mainstream Media Electioneering of Ron Paul, an exposee of the demise of Democracy in America"

Or

"Dont watch this movie, you will hate yourself if you do"

Or

"you only thought you were smart"

Or

"Wake the Fuck up Sheeple"

[lastnymleft]

Bump for a different audience...

[Mark]

I'd like to say "Donate for this Here", but I can't. It's not set up yet. I need to partner up with a PAC willing to take this on - and quickly. Any PAC reps with a track record of such activities? (Sorry - timeframes require such). We'll be needing chip-in dollars pretty quickly, so subscribe to this thread, and stay atuned, please.



You don't need to create a PAC.

My Non Profit Organization fund raises by doing outside work within our abilities.

Depending on the project, we request donations for our services starting as low as $1.

We're able to do this by utilizing volunteers to perform the work.

Anyone with related skills is encouraged to volunteer to help.

What we as an Organization can do is act as a surrogate of your project.

Fund raising works just like any other Non Profit.

People donate to our Organization, and as a Church would buy supplies to run a fund raising car wash with their donations,
we purchase whatever is needed to fulfill our fund raising drive.

If you decide to donate to our Organization, as a gift of thanks in return, we are able to give you such things as you need here.

If you need your car washed, as a gift in thanks,we can do that, and if you need a media report, as a gift in thanks, we can arrange to do that as well.

[fj45lvr]

we must have this as a documentary!!!!

This is how you fight back.

[Mark]

we must have this as a documentary!!!!

This is how you fight back.

I agree, we have to take the "bull" by the horns.

[Sey.Naci]

Obviously, the problem is disseminating the info. As other posters have said, the MSM is hardly likely to want to expose its own duplicity. So...

What of the possibility of developing an 'underground' print distributions system? Not that it can happen overnight of course, but something like this needs to get into place for now and into the future. I mean, how did the original major papers ever get off the ground? At one point, they must have been rinky-dink ventures. But in this case, we've got revolutionaries in counties and states across the US. So underground editors, journalists, and printers could start developing their local rag sheets now, selling advertising space to pay for the cost and distribute the papers free in restaurants, garages, etc.

[deedles]

The only way I can think about to reach the sheeple is to make them 'feel'. They don't think anymore and reject anything that moves them in that direction. But 'feelings'... everyone talks about feelings, the magazines and crappy 'news' shows are about feelings.

Even tonight watching a minute of the SC dem primary, the talking heads were asking voters which candidates they 'felt' would give them change, which ones cared about people... those two things ranked higher than experience and something else, can't remember.

Not one question about issues. That falls into the thinking column.

They have to be made to feel bad for the nice old grandfatherly statesman that got the shaft by the MSM. Someone really talented could pull this off big time. Sundance film festival. Cannes.

[Mark]

The only way I can think about to reach the sheeple is to make them 'feel'. They don't think anymore and reject anything that moves them in that direction. But 'feelings'... everyone talks about feelings, the magazines and crappy 'news' shows are about feelings.

Even tonight watching a minute of the SC dem primary, the talking heads were asking voters which candidates they 'felt' would give them change, which ones cared about people... those two things ranked higher than experience and something else, can't remember.

Not one question about issues. That falls into the thinking column.

They have to be made to feel bad for the nice old grandfatherly statesman that got the shaft by the MSM. Someone really talented could pull this off big time. Sundance film festival. Cannes.

Yep, you have to get inside their heads. Think like them. Know what makes them tick. And act accordingly.

[yongrel]

A full page USA Today or NY Times ad would be fantastic. I'd chip in.

[ShowMeLiberty]

You don't need to create a PAC.

My Non Profit Organization fund raises by doing outside work within our abilities.

Depending on the project, we request donations for our services starting as low as $1.

We're able to do this by utilizing volunteers to perform the work.

Anyone with related skills is encouraged to volunteer to help.

What we as an Organization can do is act as a surrogate of your project.

Fund raising works just like any other Non Profit.

People donate to our Organization, and as a Church would buy supplies to run a fund raising car wash with their donations,
we purchase whatever is needed to fulfill our fund raising drive.

If you decide to donate to our Organization, as a gift of thanks in return, we are able to give you such things as you need here.

If you need your car washed, as a gift in thanks,we can do that, and if you need a media report, as a gift in thanks, we can arrange to do that as well.

Mark, you rock. You really, really do. :)


The only way I can think about to reach the sheeple is to make them 'feel'. They don't think anymore and reject anything that moves them in that direction. But 'feelings'... everyone talks about feelings, the magazines and crappy 'news' shows are about feelings.

Even tonight watching a minute of the SC dem primary, the talking heads were asking voters which candidates they 'felt' would give them change, which ones cared about people... those two things ranked higher than experience and something else, can't remember.

Not one question about issues. That falls into the thinking column.

They have to be made to feel bad for the nice old grandfatherly statesman that got the shaft by the MSM. Someone really talented could pull this off big time. Sundance film festival. Cannes.

If there was any way at all to have something we could hand to people before Feb. 5th, we should also want them angry about being manipulated by the MSM.


A full page USA Today or NY Times ad would be fantastic. I'd chip in.

How about a "newspaper" format - like a 3 or 4 page "weekly shopper"? We could hand them out to people at grocery stores, malls, movie theatres, and so on. We'd need millions of copies though, and some way to get them to the volunteers.

Is there any hope at all of getting something (anything!) to the public before Feb 5th? Or are we just getting ready to do a big "told you so"? I'm in either way, but I'd rather it help RP win.

[Energy]

Mark, you rock. You really, really do. :)



If there was any way at all to have something we could hand to people before Feb. 5th, we should also want them angry about being manipulated by the MSM.



How about a "newspaper" format - like a 3 or 4 page "weekly shopper"? We could hand them out to people at grocery stores, malls, movie theatres, and so on. We'd need millions of copies though, and some way to get them to the volunteers.

Is there any hope at all of getting something (anything!) to the public before Feb 5th? Or are we just getting ready to do a big "told you so"? I'm in either way, but I'd rather it help RP win.



Yes: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=101290

http://ronpaulnewspaper.com should be up in a day or few.

Another project http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=79584

[Leslie Webb]

See the data gathered on this web-page, as of September. last year. (The data from the New York Times seems to be messed up. It says Ron Paul was mentioned 21,000 times in the Times. No way. )

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-silenced-by-fox-news.html

See especially:
The biggest culprit of fairness is Fox News. They refer to the top 3 candidates almost 5 times more than they refer to any of the other candidates. Mitt Romney was referenced 13,000 times on the FoxNews.com domain while Ron Paul has only been referenced 248 times. So for every 52.4 articles on Mitt Romney, there will only be one article on Ron Paul. That is absurd. On no other news source is the disparity as large as it is on Fox News.

[Paul4Prez]

A few examples of media bias:

Any article that mentioned Ron Paul and also included the words "long shot" or "quixotic" or "fringe" or "he won't win" or "dead last" (when he wasn't), etc. Then compare that to other candidates who really were all of the above (Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, John Cox, and Fred Thompson) but were treated better.

CNN's pie chart that left him out at 10% in Iowa, when it didn't leave out Richardson at 2%.

Media-sponsored debates that rationed out air time unfairly -- compare to other candidates who folded up tent already.

You need some ratio analysis -- media mentions per grassroots volunteer, media mentions per donor, media mentions per vote, media mentions per dollar raised, etc. These will be the most damaging, because they will show the bias wasn't based on objective factors.

[kill the banks]

Bump for a different audience...


locals and pbs tv stations might like it ... if real good you grow

kill the banks

[lastnymleft]

Bump

[DBJ1414]

Sounds-like A Great Idea To Me - But Can We Do It By 5 Feb- Doug

[Crickett]

The specific editorials any tv has done on any candidate. If they have done ANY they had to send out lots of stuff to all the other candidates. (Per FCC rules, see my post in Liberty Forest Hot topics). I am not really sure what constitutes an editorial but I am going to find out tomorrow.

[Sentinelrv]

Has anything happened with this? Any updates?

[bucfish]

Nice idea and keep up the good work... All liars must face the truth one day.

[Gimme Some Truth]

Correct me if Im out of line, but how is this gonna get Dr. Paul more votes?

Don't get me wrong, exposing the numerous cases of media blackouts, distortions and bias is good and all . I'm just concerned about priorities and time constraints. We don't have much time to get those votes.

.

[LandonCook]

Share with the edwards forums!

[bucfish]

Lets get this one done.

[CrownThyGood]

put it together get it petitioned .. get it up for a bill to pass a law on manipulating elections through news organizations , put an end to media bias,.. it's obvious what they're doing ..

[lastnymleft]

Sounds-like A Great Idea To Me - But Can We Do It By 5 Feb- Doug

It's doable. The actual searching for the data will take 1-2 days. Getting them the money may be the most dificult part, much like the NH recount dollars got tied up in paypal, we need to guard against that, and take appropriate steps early enough.

[lastnymleft]

Correct me if Im out of line, but how is this gonna get Dr. Paul more votes?

The evidence we dig out of this data should:
(1) Prove that poll-numbers follow coverage, NOT coverage following poll numbers.
(2) Dr Paul is getting the shaft on coverage.

>> Ergo, Those behind the determination of who gets coverage are the ones that are wilfully shafting Dr Paul's chances of getting elected, and subverting the democratic process. That is, stealing the election in favor of a selection of candidates that THEY find acceptable.

Now we all knew that, of course, but with this, there will be proof of their actions.



Don't get me wrong, exposing the numerous cases of media blackouts, distortions and bias is good and all . I'm just concerned about priorities and time constraints. We don't have much time to get those votes.

I've got that covered in my other project:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1098280


Once I get these two projects underway fully, I'll launch a third, that will go towards putting a nail in the coffin of the MSM. I could do with some help. If someone wants to take over the Precinct Leader reward scheme, please step up, to allow me to move forward with these other ones.

[hawks4ronpaul]

You might be able to feed it to foreign media and get US media to pick it up that way.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[JoBurke]

we need to turn the MSM against itself - like someone mentioned before - the "anarchy" guy, he tells them he is doing a doumentary on the exclusion of Paul - then they react....I think this is key... (like ABC said that they got the information from you AP and that is why they commented as such...or you CNN have been following the same line as Fox News...why is this so? - please comment for our local newspaper, blog, local news) or we are following a story that your news network has been deliberatly excluding candidates (insert proof here) do you care to comment? or..... we are doing a documentary called "How CNN and FOX sells information to the top bidder" would you care to comment? etc.

as the sentence "They declined to comment" is almost admission of guilt....this is a powerful weapon when "threatened" to the PR manager or the editor or whatever, we have to get deeper and more consequent....and basically tell the MSM "we are watching, make a wrong move...it is being followed and documented...as we prepare a case against you..." etc.

by the way...do we not have any Lawyers in our Grassroots? (would not surprise me if we do not - they are too busy earning good money off the establishment) but we need good lawyers who may want to do a civil suit here and there against "The MSM" but on different charges....kind of like they do with criminals...they want to get them for murder but settle for manslaughter....so maybe we should sue the MSM for "defamation of character"? or "conspiracy to misinform customers"? (meaning those who buy commercials based on the subject matter...etc....

I think we really need to be on the offensive more with the press....any takers?

by the way....I also endorse fully the need to have a chronological history of the Revolution from its infancy to where it is today with all media possible....but like a day to day, week to week site where all media could be shown and stored so that a sheeple can follow easily how the media said (collectively) something, and it was a bold faced lie...but then spun it to utilize damage control etc....

anyone?

[lastnymleft]

Ok, now I am officially beyond mad. I am livid. I've spoken to Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR). Sounds like they might be helpful, eh? Well, apart from the fact they prefer to come at it from a "progressive" angle. Huh? Since when did media criticism become partisan? Anyway, they were nice enough about it, and referred me on to another mob, focusing more purely on the campaign. These guys are doing "in depth" analysis of the campaign coverage. Alright! Sounds good. Sounds just what we need. Until I get to the front page http://www.journalism.org and I see this:

http://www.journalism.org/files/lead.png

And then digging into the story, I get this for the week of Jan 6-11:

http://www.journalism.org/files/u10/Race_for_Media_REPORT2.png
http://www.journalism.org/node/9266
Accompanying that graph is a long article analyzing the week's media coverage of the campaign. Not a single mention of the name Ron Paul.

And, more recently, this for the week of Jan 14-20:

http://www.journalism.org/files/u26/race_for_media_exposure2.png
http://www.journalism.org/node/9436

Accompanying that chart was another long analysis of the week's coverage. AGAIN, not a single reference to Ron Paul in the coverage.

It should be noted that these are web reports here. They have an effectively infinite length web page, and a chart with the candidates in the Y-dimension, so to add ONE more candidate in the charts would have taken just a few seconds more of their time.

So, I was on the phone to this guy, and - perhaps understandably - getting a little irritated. I asked why Dr Paul wasn't in the chart on the front page, or in the charts in the reports. "HE GETS SO LITTLE COVERAGE, ITS NOT WORTH REPORTING." [Emphasis mine] He didn't seem to appreciate my pointing out that what they were doing was exactly the same as the MSM, and that they were missing the main story: what the MSM are NOT covering. Like Nevada. Like Louisiana.

It should be noted that these guys are supposedly NOT part of the actual MSM. These are the guys morally POLICING the MSM. Their name is "Project on Excellence in Journalism". Apparently they received some major funding a couple of years back. I'll check into that, to see where it came from. That might be interesting.


Right at the bottom of the page of the most recent week's coverage is a table of data. FINALLY, Dr Paul is at least listed:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/5240/mediaexposurebycandidateq1.jpg

From that basic data, we see:

Mitt Romney received SIXTY FOUR TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
John McCain received FIFTY NINE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Mike Huckabee received THIRTY SIX TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Rudy Giuliani received TEN TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Fred Thompson received FOUR TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.

And here's a good one: Mike Bloomberg, whom is not even running. Received as much election coverage, as Dr Paul did, in that week.



The guy I spoke to is punching out this week's reports right now, so it should be available tomorrow.

In general, though, it looks like we are going to have to get the raw data and do our own proper analysis of it, rather than rely upon these, or similar "experts" to analyze the data for us.

As unfair as these fairness-checkers are, please don't flame them. I have more dealings with them yet.

[Jimmy]

Great idea....NUMBER ONE reason behind our troubles in this election.....without it being exposed and fight it tooth and nail...it will always effect elections now and in the future....extremely unfair.

The evidence is there NO DOUGHT about it....and it needs to be exposed.

[JoBurke]

Ok, now I am officially beyond mad. I am livid. I've spoken to Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR). Sounds like they might be helpful, eh? Well, apart from the fact they prefer to come at it from a "progressive" angle. Huh? Since when did media criticism become partisan? Anyway, they were nice enough about it, and referred me on to another mob, focusing more purely on the campaign. These guys are doing "in depth" analysis of the campaign coverage. Alright! Sounds good. Sounds just what we need. Until I get to the front page http://www.journalism.org and I see this:

http://www.journalism.org/files/lead.png

And then digging into the story, I get this for the week of Jan 6-11:

http://www.journalism.org/files/u10/Race_for_Media_REPORT2.png
http://www.journalism.org/node/9266
Accompanying that graph is a long article analyzing the week's media coverage of the campaign. Not a single mention of the name Ron Paul.

And, more recently, this for the week of Jan 14-20:

http://www.journalism.org/files/u26/race_for_media_exposure2.png
http://www.journalism.org/node/9436

Accompanying that chart was another long analysis of the week's coverage. AGAIN, not a single reference to Ron Paul in the coverage.

It should be noted that these are web reports here. They have an effectively infinite length web page, and a chart with the candidates in the Y-dimension, so to add ONE more candidate in the charts would have taken just a few seconds more of their time.

So, I was on the phone to this guy, and - perhaps understandably - getting a little irritated. I asked why Dr Paul wasn't in the chart on the front page, or in the charts in the reports. "HE GETS SO LITTLE COVERAGE, ITS NOT WORTH REPORTING." [Emphasis mine] He didn't seem to appreciate my pointing out that what they were doing was exactly the same as the MSM, and that they were missing the main story: what the MSM are NOT covering. Like Nevada. Like Louisiana.

It should be noted that these guys are supposedly NOT part of the actual MSM. These are the guys morally POLICING the MSM. Their name is "Project on Excellence in Journalism". Apparently they received some major funding a couple of years back. I'll check into that, to see where it came from. That might be interesting.


Right at the bottom of the page of the most recent week's coverage is a table of data. FINALLY, Dr Paul is at least listed:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/5240/mediaexposurebycandidateq1.jpg

From that basic data, we see:

Mitt Romney received SIXTY FOUR TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
John McCain received FIFTY NINE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Mike Huckabee received THIRTY SIX TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Rudy Giuliani received TEN TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Fred Thompson received FOUR TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.

And here's a good one: Mike Bloomberg, whom is not even running. Received as much election coverage, as Dr Paul did, in that week.



The guy I spoke to is punching out this week's reports right now, so it should be available tomorrow.

In general, though, it looks like we are going to have to get the raw data and do our own proper analysis of it, rather than rely upon these, or similar "experts" to analyze the data for us.

As unfair as these fairness-checkers are, please don't flame them. I have more dealings with them yet.

I like your dedication and I respect you for checking into this! I had no idea...I am glad you exposed this - but it would seem as you implied they may be in on the take!

Keep up the good work and update! RESPECT!

[Mark]

I've started a ChipIn if need be - but Google Checkout is FREE to use until the end of the month - so that would be the best to use.

My Non Profit has started a Media Company, "New Press Television", ( websites: http://NewPressTV.com & http://NewPress.tv )
as an investment in order to raise funds for our Charity work,
so, I thought this project might be good as a means of gaining experience in the Media field.

If I can assure the Board of Directors that the funding for this project will be forthcoming we can go ahead and begin it.

Basically, we need the money to pay the Media Reporting company for their reports.

If the payment can be secured through Google Checkout, ChipIn, PayPal, or direct wire into the Non Profit's checking account,
we can forward the money to the reporting service and be on our way immediately.

( And thank you ShowMeLiberty, I'm sure you rock! too ) ;)

[Mark]

Please comment if you think that this is a worthy project that you would support - we need to know asap in order to proceed.

[Jimmy]

Put up a poll...would you support or not.......with an exact game plan...start to finish about what you planning on doing and how your going to promote it. I'm interested and would listen.

[Mark]

Put up a poll...would you support or not.......with an exact game plan...start to finish about what you planning on doing and how your going to promote it. I'm interested and would listen.

Good idea!

The OP lastnymleft (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=5546) has volunteered to do all the legwork in terms of getting specifics, waiting on him to report back with more details.

We IM'd for a good while last night, I haven't heard back yet.

He needs to do a poll in this thread - otherwise - probably should wait until he solids up some info before stating a new poll thread.

The contributions to the Non Profit are also Tax Deductible if that helps.

Churches/Religious Orgs receive automatic 501(c)3 status from the IRS - donations under $250 do NOT need a receipt to be deducted from taxes.

[lastnymleft]

Results are in for the week 20080121-20080127, and it's even worse than the week before. We knew something was astray. Here's proof!

Source: http://www.journalism.org/node/9512

Though they COULD put it on there, this media monitoring agency, and their "Project on Excellence in Journalism" decided Dr Paul's coverage is TOO SMALL TO REGISTER ON THE GRAPH! (Hold your fire, though. I am dealing with them on a matter. They may come around.)

http://www.journalism.org/files/u26/race_for_media_Exposure_final_0.png


This is just sickening. Democracy is being stolen RIGHT NOW. 10-15% of the nation are being effectively disenfranchised:

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/9886/mediaexposurebycandidatnz7.jpg
What that means is that in just a few stories Dr Paul managed to register between 25%-50% of the subject of the article. The number of stories in which he featured more than 50% was closer to ZERO than 0.1%.

From that basic data, we see:

John McCain received EIGHTY FIVE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Rudy Giuliani received SIXTY NINE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Mitt Romney received FIFTY NINE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Mike Huckabee received THIRTY TWO TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Fred Thompson received TWENTY FIVE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.

For the record, Barack Obama received TWO HUNDRED AND SEVEN TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Hillary Clinton was close behind, receiving TWO HUNDRED AND TWO TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.

And here's a good one: Bill Clinton, whom is not even running. Received NINETY ONE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul did in that week.


It may be a few days before I am able to source the raw data that will allow us to really delve into this, and throw the light on a few things, but this cannot stand even for one day longer. IT"S TIME TO GET MAD! Get this out into the blogosphere. Link to this page: http://www.journalism.org/node/9512

I sent an email to Jesse, the public spokesman for the Campaign a day or two ago, but he didn't respond. Does anyone know how to get through to someone that will act on this outrage? They need to take this data, and do a press release NOW.

I have spoken to the media monitoring guy again, but he hasn't given me a price yet for the raw data. We will need money in a hurry when it happens, so stay tuned. Subscribe to this thread. This is a HOT issue. We need to rally the grassroots around this issue, NOW.

[Mark]

bunk

[lastnymleft]

This lack of MSM coverage is probably the single greatest existential threat to our campaign. Even if we have 180,000 precinct leaders, we'll still need media coverage. This should be a buzzing thread. What's up, people? Let's get some thoughts going on how to counter it:

Shouldn't we be protesting out the front of MSM headquarters, VERY LOUDLY, until they relent, then moving on to the next one, until they relent, or some such vociferous activity? This has to get out!

Please read my post just above here, with the stats for the last week! GET ANGRY! GET EVEN!

[phree]

I only question the wisdom of including Kucinich. I think I'd rather see the whole focus on RP.

[Naraku]

A few interesting points:

1. The Nevada results on Fox News for sure. That was just manipulation. Have video of them as well, especially when Ron Paul was in second.
2. There was something a while back on Huckabee's position on birthright citizenship in the LA Times, I believe, where it said no other major candidate had that position. Some one pointed out Ron Paul and called for a correction, but was told the key word was "major candidate" so Ron Paul wasn't mentioned.
3. Ron Paul getting more votes than Giuliani frequently and consistently in almost every primary and caucus, while Giuliani receives more air time.
4. Scientific polls where Paul is ahead of other candidates like Giuliani or Thompson, but he isn't mentioned.

Be sure to include CNN and MSNBC, as well as Fox News for cable coverage. Then, be sure to mention the deal with CNBC and the online poll.

It also would be great to include coverage of the other candidates long before they actually ran. For instance, the coverage Obama got when he got into the Senate and talk of him running for President. Then deal with Thompson who was played up a lot and likely ran simply because of the pressure. All the while pointing out where Huckabee was talked up as a potential dark horse to rise up later on, months before he actually did.

In a sense it could be based on, not simply censorship of Paul, but sort of the king-making of the media.

Focusing on this and including the censorship of Paul would be really great. Having the title changed to basically focus on the media's role in lifting up and bringing down certain candidates, focusing on this election year, is one way to make it more broadly of interest.

Talking about Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson's media darling status from the beginning and then how Paul rose significantly and largely without media coverage, but was ultimately ignored just shows how much the media manipulates these elections.

EDIT: Title idea: Crowning Achievement: Media Control of Elections

[Mark]

This lack of MSM coverage is probably the single greatest existential threat to our campaign. Even if we have 180,000 precinct leaders, we'll still need media coverage. This should be a buzzing thread. What's up, people? Let's get some thoughts going on how to counter it:

Shouldn't we be protesting out the front of MSM headquarters, VERY LOUDLY, until they relent, then moving on to the next one, until they relent, or some such vociferous activity? This has to get out!

Please read my post just above here, with the stats for the last week! GET ANGRY! GET EVEN!

Could use some ideas on data analysis from any experts out there.

[Mark]

An old saying - "Everyone complains about the weather - no one does anything about it."

As much as people complain about the media - one would think there would be more input on how we can use some solid media data.

[Benaiah]

If you want to get more people interested in this thread, then edit the OP to contain some pretty graphs.

[Kotin]

bump

[Agent CSL]

Project I'm working on, mainly just to satisfy my own curiosity. A lot of people already know who owns what. I'm just trying to make it into an image.
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7374/themediaworlddj3.jpg

Work in progress.

[Iwantchange]

It's true... What blows my mind is we have been clearly doing better than Giuliani, but yet Giuliani gets 10 times more media coverage?

[Sauron]

It's true... What blows my mind is we have been clearly doing better than Giuliani, but yet Giuliani gets 10 times more media coverage?
The media needs ratings. If everyone knows that Ron Paul is gonna win the nomination, nobody would watch the primaries. That's how it was with Bush in 2000. Everybody knew he would win.

[wsc321]

I think there is only one way to change the media, and that is by slowly taking over the Republican party at the grassroots level. "Top down" change (e.g. legal action, emailing editors, phone calls, etc) is effectively impossible.

(Now, a well put together video on Google that documents the "King Maker" role the media has taken might do some significant good - but even that is effectively "grassroots" work, from my view.)

One reason I believe the campaign is so adamant about canvassing and precinct leaders is because they know that is the only way to offset the media influence. Our only chance is that one-to-one "people interactions" can hold more influence than the media. Some folks will follow the media and the status quo no matter what. But if we can reach those Americans who think for themselves and are ready to take responsibility, we can slowly effect change from the bottom up.

So, in essence, my view is that the only hope lies in persistent and effective (i.e. educated and thoughtful) activism at the grassroots/local level. This means becoming a delegate, becoming precinct chair, actively supporting any local candidates that run on the Ron Paul platform, etc, etc. It's also got to be a long-term effort - think 10 years. Only if we could eventually take over as the controlling interest of the Republican party could we have the power to actually change anything in the popular (media-driven) culture, and that would be because we wield real power that would reign in the obviously amoral (if not immoral) nature of the media.

[JimInNY]

I would like to see if Ron's coverage actually shrunk as his popularity grew.

I think it did.

[lastnymleft]

Project I'm working on, mainly just to satisfy my own curiosity. A lot of people already know who owns what. I'm just trying to make it into an image.
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7374/themediaworlddj3.jpg

Work in progress.

Nice! Are you using some social-network program to develop the relationships, or are you just laying it out manually? I think the former should be available, as I've seen similar, but I couldn't point you in any particular direction for it.



I'm still waiting on the media monitoring service guy. He still hasn't even given me a price to get the raw data. He's cutting it fine.

[lastnymleft]

Spoke to the guy again. He didn't come through with the pricing, or the sample database, as he promised he would by the end of work yesterday. He's promising the same thing again. I hope he hasn't been directed not to do this. Some of his clients are the MSM themselves. And some of the other campaigns...

[pepperpete1]

Spoke to the guy again. He didn't come through with the pricing, or the sample database, as he promised he would by the end of work yesterday. He's promising the same thing again. I hope he hasn't been directed not to do this. Some of his clients are the MSM themselves. And some of the other campaigns...

As per the FCC rules they must keep a file of all time allotted to each candidate. Their own file will show the disparity of time given to each candidate.

Look here:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/complaint_tips.html


http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/pif....dcast/pif.html

http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/late...pdates-109.php

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/politic...icy/political/

[constitutional]

Project I'm working on, mainly just to satisfy my own curiosity. A lot of people already know who owns what. I'm just trying to make it into an image.
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7374/themediaworlddj3.jpg

Work in progress.

Don't be surprised if you end up everything being connected and being owned by one small company located somewhere in amazon forest.

[lastnymleft]

As per the FCC rules they must keep a file of all time allotted to each candidate. Their own file will show the disparity of time given to each candidate.

Look here:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/complaint_tips.html


http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/pif....dcast/pif.html

http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/late...pdates-109.php

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/politic...icy/political/

The second and fourth links are showing "Not Found".

So, would they have to submit such a log of time to the FCC? If they have to submit, then it's probably available via FOI. If they don't have to submit, and they only have to have it available for random audit, then we probably couldn't get it. It would be interesting to see how they fudge it to make it not obvious to the FCC that they weren't giving fair coverage. You could perhaps do a comparison of their submission with the news monitoring group's raw data. None of this will help us prior to Super Tuesday though, unfortunately.

What might, will be the raw data from the news monitoring service, but AGAIN the guy has let me down. I'm starting to wonder about his sincerity, and whether the release of the data will be delayed until it's too late to do much for Super Tuesday.

[Mark]

As per the FCC rules they must keep a file of all time allotted to each candidate. Their own file will show the disparity of time given to each candidate.

Look here:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/complaint_tips.html


http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/pif....dcast/pif.html

http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/late...pdates-109.php

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/politic...icy/political/

Maybe this will give the data needed?

Your last three links didn't work - you need to click the "world" icon and post the links that way.

[InLoveWithRon]

bump

[lastnymleft]

In a sense it could be based on, not simply censorship of Paul, but sort of the king-making of the media.

Focusing on this and including the censorship of Paul would be really great. Having the title changed to basically focus on the media's role in lifting up and bringing down certain candidates, focusing on this election year, is one way to make it more broadly of interest.

Talking about Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson's media darling status from the beginning and then how Paul rose significantly and largely without media coverage, but was ultimately ignored just shows how much the media manipulates these elections.

EDIT: Title idea: Crowning Achievement: Media Control of Elections

Yes, I think that's a great way to go. I am very keen to see clearly the relationship between coverage and polls, where coverage is said to lead polls, indicating the MSM can be king-maker. I expect to see this very clearly with regards to Huckabee and McCain's meteoric rises late last year, which were totally irrational. Huck rose like 20% in between polls, if I recall. That's NOT organic growth!

Loved your title, too.

.

I would like to see if Ron's coverage actually shrunk as his popularity grew.

I think it did.

Yes and no. Coverage leads polls, so it's correct to say that polls can be dragged up by coverage. The flip of that, though, is that a lack of coverage should be able to drag polls down. Whilst true Ron Paul supporters would be particularly resistant to that sort of manipulation, it's probably a safe bet that they are in deed forcing Dr Paul's poll numbers down with their lack of coverage, due to those people leaving that had only just encountered the Dr, and were not 100% with his whole platform yet.

[magicmike]

We have a great project to give Ron Paul coverage directly a Ron Paul newspaper!

The topic for it is here
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=104480&page=3
The website is here
http://www.ronpaulnewspaper.com

Crystal Broyles the 22 year old that did all the work for putting the project together is only $3,272.03 away from her first order of 100,000 papers.
Don't want to take away from the 51st donation today, but for the $2,300ers this is a great way to contribute.

[INeedATherapist]

Anybody know anyone at Google?

They have a policy to do no evil.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing."

I think there's another quote that says (paraphrased) that good men who sit by and do nothing are just as bad as the evil ones who do it.

You know, Ron Paul gets a lot of support from Google and Microsoft employees. Somebody get in touch with them to start working up the ladder there. Google, if anybody, should be one of the first to realize a the problems brewing that need to be stopped.

[lastnymleft]

Anybody know anyone at Google?

They have a policy to do no evil.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing."

I think there's another quote that says (paraphrased) that good men who sit by and do nothing are just as bad as the evil ones who do it.

You know, Ron Paul gets a lot of support from Google and Microsoft employees. Somebody get in touch with them to start working up the ladder there. Google, if anybody, should be one of the first to realize a the problems brewing that need to be stopped.

Could you expand on what you are suggesting they could/would do?

[Margo37]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a continuance of this in another thread??? Very much interested as I've kept track too.


I would like to see if Ron's coverage actually shrunk as his popularity grew.

We had a little coverage up to the first Money Bomb as I have collected lots of tapes, then RP was interviewed everywhere for about two days. That I think really scared them, this might become a viable campaign and we were totally blacked out from then on. I watch a lot of news just for this purpose.
After the Dec 16 bomb nothing was said but for about 6 seconds, I heard his name twice since then on CNN plus the Trevor interview and I don't normally watch Fox or regular evening news, nothing else at all anywhere. No mention of the 6+ million, very little about the blimp, anything else has been noted in the threads.
The way CNN pointedly showed Super Tuesday results below the screen now that we were losing, the other 3 together and then Dr. Paul alone next to the 2 Dems and the big numbers, a method now picked up by Fox last night.

If this thread continues elsewhere someone please point me there, there are so many.

[Thanehand]

Just wanted to post in this thread since I just discovered it and I've been working on a similar project for some time: The Ron Paul Timeline. There are even entries on it to the Journalism.org articles that originally published those charts you included in the first post:

It doesn't have a complete set of data yet, but I'm trying to get as much in it as possible. The hardest part is going back in history to document all the old stuff.

http://www.RonPaulTimeline.com

I'll be presenting the data in multiple forms eventually. Working on graphs right now that show some interesting things.

In general, the Ron Paul blackout happened almost from the beginning, but yes (as someone asked in the thread), the ferocity of the blackout and negativity dramatically increased as Ron's popularity grew.

[justatrey]

bump

[lastnymleft]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a continuance of this in another thread??? Very much interested as I've kept track too.
<snip>
If this thread continues elsewhere someone please point me there, there are so many.

I started this thread for the purpose of getting the specific project up and running, that would expose the media. I'm still working on that, and use this thread for that (it's in my sig), but each week I have been creating separate threads to announce that particular week's coverage reports. See the top link in my sig for the latest of those threads. Comment on that particular week's coverage in that thread, and on the general project to expose the media here.

[FreeTraveler]

we should start talking about about a secret internet forum that the MSM doesn't know about... let's start referring about the grey internet that no one knows about...

You mean VendettaNet? That's top-secret, and should only be discussed by the Inner Cadre, and never on such a public forum as this. Please forget you read this message. Thanks.

[RonPaulWisconsin]

Gosh, I would really love to see a well-done film that exposed the entire mainstream media.. I would love to be a part of that, in any way, shape or form. It would have to be objective, it couldn't just focus on the censorship/distortion of Dr. Paul..

[FreeTraveler]

"Blacklist 2008"
McCarthyism, the Media, and Presidential Politics

[Edu]

Ron Paul - The Censorship Continues - full version
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5565496355956360881

Posted to google video around Oct, 2007 (about 30 minutes)

[justatrey]

I'm at work and wish I could contribute something meaningful to this thread but instead I'll just bump it.

[LEK]

These recent YouTube videos add evidence to what you have gathered...someone posted them earlier today (2/14) - hopefully they are still able to be viewed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXCkgz1Y-Bk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4QO7zXTljE

[firebirdnation]

Excellent idea.

[Henry]

Maybe a long shot, Howard Kurtz?

[Lisa S]

Don't forget the guy whatever his name is telling Dr. Paul he couldn't win at the very beginning of the campaign and the impact that could have had on voters. Also, the way Hannity dismissed the text message poll debate wins as spammers that was voting multiple times also, being left out of debate when Guiliani was included and Franks fake focus group signaling out Ron Paul as doing the worst job in debate. I guess all that isn't media blackout but it sure is media manipulation.

[lastnymleft]

Maybe a long shot, Howard Kurtz?

You mean as a typical MSM-shill? Agreed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXYWgC_wuMA