Whistleblower bounty for proof of MSM blackout waged on Dr Paul

[lastnymleft]

I have a project underway to get sufficient EVIDENCE to show that the MSM is shutting Dr Paul out. That is based on raw data provided by a news monitoring service. It's still playing out, but here's where it's at:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=100886

Now, I want to attack the problem from another angle, as well. Now, I want to get internal PROOF that the MSM has actually made DECISIONS to shut the campaign, and are engaged in a conspiracy(!) to implement those decisions. I'm looking for proof, in the form of memos passed down from on-high, emailed directions, etc.

This is not just one or two people up top that are doing this. EVERYBODY below them must know that the fix is in. So, I'm proposing a monetary bounty, to draw the underlings out. Many of them may still harbor the traces of a heart, with remnants of decency, and belief in good 'ol "fair go". A number of them may just care for their country. And maybe there's even a few closet Ron Paul supporters in there.

Whatever, having a bit of money "grease the wheels" of the whistleblower scheme cannot but be a good thing in terms of making it happen, when it otherwis wouldn't, for fear of causing a stink for no potential reward.

So, I put it out to the grassroots. How much should we be offering? How can this work logistically? We can and sholud guarantee anonymity if they so seek it, but to be awarded dollars, the proof that they provide must be SOLID without their name being attached to it.

Should we shoot for $10,000 for hard evidence? $25,000? $50,000?

How about we just keep kicking funds into it, and it keeps rising...$100,000...$200,000...until someone claims it. But then their proof must be judged as being worthy, somehow. It may only be worth part of it, as it may be weak, and not cause the intended exposure. How can we judge the results of worthy proof? Of course payouts must only be done some time down the track, after the proof has been released, and found to hold water. Some may be fakes which we shall have to be on the alert for. Confirmation of seriousness can be assured by any emails be traceable via headers back to their work address. And we can ring them AT WORK, to ensure that they are serious. Then we keep their identity anonymous, and move forward with exposing the coverup.

What say ye?

[Myerz]

EVIDENCE????

Turn on the damn TV?

Seriously....Who's owns the AP? That's a good place to start. Next, the Bilderberg Group.
No it's not a conspiracy theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

[JimInNY]

sounds feasible, I suppose. The proof is judged good if it results in a penalty, somehow.

[mello]

Ron Paul has stated that what the mainstream media was doing was not illegal. Unfortunately Dr. Paul is too much of a gentleman to call them a bunch of unethical douchebags. Thank god I'm not a gentleman though. My hope is that the MSM's punishment in hell is that they have to go to journalism school for eternity.

[lastnymleft]

EVIDENCE????

Turn on the damn TV?

That's only anecdotal. We need the HARD evidence (Project 1), and then the PROOF (Project 2), in a 1-2 combination punch.



Seriously....Who's owns the AP? That's a good place to start. Next, the Bilderberg Group.
No it's not a conspiracy theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

I don't expect that we are going to have someone hand us a memo with David Rockefellers signature on it! I'd be happy with some mid-level scalp. A senior producer, or editor, or someone like that, issuing a memo to on-air talent, or journalists, etc.

That's realistic, and doable, and would be a good victory. Then we need similar from ALL other networks.

[UK4Paul]

I agree. The fact that Ron Paul has been so consistently blacked out means there is probably a paper trail.

If we could get hold of the paper trail, it would make at least a very good documentary on the state of the current mainstream media... and provide a good case for its replacement.

Why not make the MSM actually SCARED of the grassroots?

We raised the funds for a recount in New Hampshire - we could do this.

[Fields]

I fully support this idea.

[lastnymleft]

Why not make the MSM actually SCARED of the grassroots?
That's exactly right. Apart from exposing HISTORIC behavior, it is my intent that a standing pool of money be hanging over their heads, letting them know that if they DO act nefariously, and against the public interest, then can they REALLY trust the underlings to carry it out without exposing them, to get the bounty? Once you erode that trust-factor, it makes for a very lonely world for them, and it slows them down, as they have to do everything themselves, or they actually self-limit their behavior. In any case, it's all good.

[Ronin]

It's a good idea, but the approach should be examined. I believe G. Edward Griffin is right when he says you can only fight power with power. In this case, I say the support of independent news networks is a better approach.

Does anyone really thing 60 minutes will do a piece on how currupt they are?? To get the word out you need MSM, which won't run with this type of story.

http://www.therealnews.com has made a good start.

[lastnymleft]

It's a good idea, but the approach should be examined. I believe G. Edward Griffin is right when he says you can only fight power with power. In this case, I say the support of independent news networks is a better approach.

Does anyone really thing 60 minutes will do a piece on how currupt they are?? To get the word out you need MSM, which won't run with this type of story.

http://www.therealnews.com has made a good start.

I agree. I've been following therealnews since it was INN, a couple of years ago. They HAVE made a good start. Very small audience though. But there are other such avenues I had in mind. Greg Palast is an American investigative journalist whom gave up trying to get covered in the US, so he went to England, and gets good coverage via BBC and ITV. The independent journos can verify the data, and then we can give them a boost, by plugging it to the blogosphere, and doing strategic paid ads. Or by including it as inserts in our mailings and handouts.

Plus, small, local stations seem to be still giving Dr Paul a fair run. That's probably a clue that the main honchos in the networks don't fully control their affiliates...yet.

[freedomintheusa]

http://www.unitedboycott.org/index.htm here is what i have seen

[lastnymleft]

http://www.unitedboycott.org/index.htm here is what i have seen

Yeah; I was aware of that. That's another angle we can pursue. Once we have the hard evidence, see if there's something criminal in their actions. Or maybe even a civil suit. Depends on the evidence that we get, I suppose. Nice to know such is in the background though.

[-lotus-]

you dont think the mass media could spin something like that away regardless of what 'evidence' you get? call me crazy but im not crazy about this plan of yours

[Thanehand]

I've been slowly adding each instance of media negativity and blackout to a timeline. Would love help populating the data. Check it out: http://www.RonPaulTimeline.com

[fuzzybekool]

I agree that even if this did get aired somehow, it would quickly be forgotten.

I believe the way to beat the MSM is to make them irrelevant. You make them irrelevant by increasing the popularity of the online media and blogs. Online video streaming is getting better daily and cheaper, so soon, websites can be established as competition to cable news, broadcasting 24/7, streaming online with their own reporters, stories, and hopefully a truely more fair and balanced approach. But even if online media is biased, hopefully there will be great competition and people will pick and choose who to watch.

I understand it won't happen overnight, but look far the internet took Ron Paul in these short months.

[lastnymleft]

you dont think the mass media could spin something like that away regardless of what 'evidence' you get? call me crazy but im not crazy about this plan of yours

They've bent us forwards over the table. You can go to your 'quiet place', and take it, if you like. I intend to fight all the way.

You are totally discounting the Luck factor. Maybe one of Rupert Murdoch's juniors is a closet Ron Paul supporter, and doesn't like what is happening to his country. And what if that person were to cop a voicemail from RM saying "I thought I told you not to give that f$&^**er Ron Paul any coverage, and you go and put him on the Situation Room?! "

You never know what's at play behind the scenes. A pool of money will draw them out at *some* stage. At the very least, with it hanging over their heads, it will have to make the uncomfortable.



I've been slowly adding each instance of media negativity and blackout to a timeline. Would love help populating the data. Check it out: http://www.RonPaulTimeline.com

That will be a great resource, when completed! I had been thinking of something similar for a while. I was going to do a "thatwhichmakesusstronger.com" or something like that, listing all the times we've been shafted, and the extraordinary amount of times we have had "bad luck", due to "technicalities", like when Facebook search doesn't work for searches of "ron paul", but works fine for other candidates. I had been thinking a wiki, though.

[lastnymleft]

I agree that even if this did get aired somehow, it would quickly be forgotten.

I believe the way to beat the MSM is to make them irrelevant. You make them irrelevant by increasing the popularity of the online media and blogs. Online video streaming is getting better daily and cheaper, so soon, websites can be established as competition to cable news, broadcasting 24/7, streaming online with their own reporters, stories, and hopefully a truely more fair and balanced approach. But even if online media is biased, hopefully there will be great competition and people will pick and choose who to watch.

I understand it won't happen overnight, but look far the internet took Ron Paul in these short months.

The next President that is not Dr Paul will crack down on the internet within the next term for two reasons:
(1) who's supporting them during this campaign? Old media and old media's owners. ie the military industrial complex. They are not going to risk that future support, and
(2) the party structures (both GOP and Dems) cannot allow someone such as Dr Paul to arise in the future. They need to make it more difficult for such a person to gain any momentum in this medium. It's only going to get worse for them, with declining offline circulations, so the pressuer will come sooner, rather than later.

What you are suggesting will take a decade, at least. We can't afford to wait that long.

[wowabunga]

Every dog has it's day... their deeds will either be rewarded or it will be thier demise. Karma has a wonderful way of showing up later on down the road... right on time.

About a dozen of us staffed 2 tables (not one... two...!!!) at a regional hobbiest event here in town and handed out a lot of Ron Paul material. There were no other candidates or signs anywhere... and I made it a point to let the attendies know that there was a reason we were there in person. (as in the media does not represent we the people... sad but true). Here's some powerful video of the event...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=URTvgfnh1pM

[Ronin]

I've been slowly adding each instance of media negativity and blackout to a timeline. Would love help populating the data. Check it out: http://www.RonPaulTimeline.com

Good idea. I think a timeline should be started at http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

[Thanehand]

That will be a great resource, when completed! I had been thinking of something similar for a while. I was going to do a "thatwhichmakesusstronger.com" or something like that, listing all the times we've been shafted, and the extraordinary amount of times we have had "bad luck", due to "technicalities", like when Facebook search doesn't work for searches of "ron paul", but works fine for other candidates. I had been thinking a wiki, though.


Yeah, I had thought about a wiki, but I wanted something a bit more powerful in terms of raw data that could eventually be queried, sorted, searched and displayed in a number of different ways. It's all going into a SQL database at the moment.

If you want to work together to at least help document everything that would be great. I'd like to expose the database with web services eventually, so you could potentially pull from it.

It'll be an all-encompassing timeline, but I'm focusing on two things that need to be documented for the American people:

Blackout/Negative/False News:
All of the items with a black background are instances of the establishment (of any kind) keeping Ron out of the discussion. The red-background items are negative press.

Grassroots:
All of the green text is grassroots related. Everything that has been done by the grassroots movement needs to be documented! I believe that this is the most historic presidential race in our history and this fact is being completely ignored.

Historic:
The entire story is historic, but there are events that are historic in their own right (fundraising for example). These are highlighted with a red border.

Please! If anyone is a junkie, consider submitting any events/blackouts/grassroots stuff that's not already shown.

http://www.RonPaulTimeline.com

[mello]

I agree that even if this did get aired somehow, it would quickly be forgotten.

I believe the way to beat the MSM is to make them irrelevant. You make them irrelevant by increasing the popularity of the online media and blogs. Online video streaming is getting better daily and cheaper, so soon, websites can be established as competition to cable news, broadcasting 24/7, streaming online with their own reporters, stories, and hopefully a truely more fair and balanced approach. But even if online media is biased, hopefully there will be great competition and people will pick and choose who to watch.

I understand it won't happen overnight, but look far the internet took Ron Paul in these short months.

It will take another generation before this could happen. There are still a bunch of middle-aged & elderly people that are not web savvy. I think that in order to get through to the MSM is to do things that would force them to notice. For example, a flash mob of ten thousand Ron Paul Supporters showing up at 30 Rock in New York chanting "RON PAUL IS NEWSWORTHY" would be just that.

Another example would be the Superbowl. Now I know that commercials would be impossible but fans wearing Ron Paul Revolution shirts is OK. Preferably in highly-viewed spots like the first couple rows by the endzones.

[FreedomLiberty]

Expose Associated Press (AP) too. Yahoo use AP on their front page a lot and Google usually use AP for their news site.

[RonRules]

That's a good activity, but please wait till after Super Tuesday.

BTW, I was watching NBC tonight and they were only showing McCain, Romney and Giuliani. No mention of Huckabee (in the graphics).

Is there a conspiracy against Huck? I don't think so. Maybe it's just that the pie chart slices have to have a certain character size to be visible from a distance (actually, visible by the over 60 crowd !)

[doronster195]

Honestly this is a waste of time, the reason they don't broadcast him is because their polls show him as low. If we were able to get the people they call to like Ron Paul then we would have some more air time. At least thats what they'll tell you even after you show them all this evidence.

[Ex Post Facto]

Hmm maybe we can all dumpster dive at news agencies across the USA, and collect shreddings of all destroyed memo's :p

[Thanehand]

Honestly this is a waste of time, the reason they don't broadcast him is because their polls show him as low. If we were able to get the people they call to like Ron Paul then we would have some more air time. At least thats what they'll tell you even after you show them all this evidence.

But you can't get the people they call to like Ron Paul without broadcasting him! (despite our grassroots, which cannot get to everyone in the country)

And therefore they don't learn about him.

And therefore he doesn't get higher polling.

And therefore they don't broadcast about him.

And therefore they don't learn about him.

And therefore he doesn't get higher polling.

And therefore they don't broadcast about him.

And therefore they don't learn about him.

And therefore he doesn't get higher polling.

And therefore they don't broadcast about him.

And therefore they don't learn about him.

And therefore he doesn't get higher polling.

And therefore they don't broadcast about him.

And therefore they don't learn about him.

And therefore he doesn't get higher polling.

And therefore they don't broadcast about him.

And therefore they don't learn about him.

And therefore he doesn't get higher polling.

And therefore they don't broadcast about him.

.
.
.

Do I need to continue? ;) :D

[gb13]

Great idea. I love it.

[Leslie Webb]

Run an anti-media ad (all print no sound), as follows:

In the week before the Florida primary, Jan. 21-28, the media blacked out coverage of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Data shows that:

John McCain received EIGHTY FIVE TIMES more media coverage,
Rudy Giuliani received SIXTY NINE TIMES more media coverage.
Mitt Romney received FIFTY NINE TIMES more media coverage.
Mike Huckabee received THIRTY TWO TIMES more media coverage.
Fred Thompson received TWENTY FIVE TIMES more media coverage

Please express your displeasure at this unfair media blackout of Ron Paul by boycotting the following news networks and programs:

Fox News
MSNBC
NBC Evening News
CBS Evening News
ABC Evening News

Thank you

[doronster195]

Well how does proving the obvious help your case? They claim he isn't mainstream, which is true, they claim he doesn't appeal to the base which is true (neo-conservatives), they claim he's crazy which he seems to be because of all of his unexplained soundbites (abolish CIA, Abolish DOE, end drug war, etc.) These policies make sense but they must be explained.

[Matt Collins]

I have a project underway to get sufficient EVIDENCE to show that the MSM is shutting Dr Paul out.

ABC's planned election coverage which excludes Ron Paul:
http://abcnewsradio.com/08election/advisories/supertuesday.html

Please send me a check for $10,000 I could really use it especially since I haven't been earning much income the last month or so because of the campaign.

[Mark]

If I could get enough tax deductible donations to my non profit it could sponsor it as a political educational mission.

And/or run it through our new fundraising vehicle, a media company.

[jyakulis]

haha who's going to report this so the general populace is informed about the issue once we get the evidence?

[Crickett]

Well, if you look in my post in Hot topics--I got my complaints on this escalated to the Legal dept at the FCC today. We NEED to build the FCC public files on these newscasters and all. The FCC could not find a definition of editorial, so I..well..just read the crap. Its called something like lets make FCC trouble for MSM

[JeffersonAndLiberty]

I am totally in favor of this. Regardless of our support for Dr. Paul, we can't allow the media to control this country. They're not just going to start being honest on their own, we need to expose them and run the bastards out of this country. I'm totally in favor of this as a chip-in or something, with the unclaimed amount to be spent on radio or tv ads for Dr. Paul's campaign.

[qh4dotcom]

What's the purpose of getting this proof if we show it to people who don't believe in such proof or don't care that RP is getting shut out by MSM?

[EotS]

I've been thinking along these lines lately as well.

There has to be a whistleblower out there somewhere. The key problem is this: If we found a high-level whistleblower, who will air his / her story?

If they came from Fox, do you think ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN is going to jump on the story and expose it as a scandal? Problem: They're in on the same scandal!

And to whoever wrote in this thread that "they're not reporting him because he's polling too low" please explain why Ron has beaten Rudy in most states, and Rudy gets 70 times more coverage?

It is true that your average Joe doesn't know who Ron is, and if they do know of him, but don't see his name mentioned much, they just think "well, it must be because he has no support." The blackout is, at least in the short term, effective.

Did anyone see this gem from Lew Rockwell in his blog the other day?

A famous journalist (and wonderful writer) for a famous print publication calls a friend to say that "You would not believe the pressure all across the media not to write about Ron Paul, unless it is something quirky. I am ashamed to say my own editor is part of the blackout."

[j0ew00ds]

Hey OP, have you seen this?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018975.html

[time4change]

I've been slowly adding each instance of media negativity and blackout to a timeline. Would love help populating the data. Check it out: http://www.RonPaulTimeline.comThanks. I bookmarked your page and will submit whatever I find. There are too many cases of blackouts to not be recording this. Hope you're keeping backups of the database. :)

[time4change]

What's the purpose of getting this proof if we show it to people who don't believe in such proof or don't care that RP is getting shut out by MSM?Better yet, what's the purpose of doing anything at all? Lets just curl up in the fetal position and pray for everything bad to go away. That will be much more effective.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

How about this? Tim Skubick talks about keeping Ron Paul supporters out of the shots.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tZNlXSn_vC8

[JoBurke]

I have a project underway to get sufficient EVIDENCE to show that the MSM is shutting Dr Paul out. That is based on raw data provided by a news monitoring service. It's still playing out, but here's where it's at:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=100886

Now, I want to attack the problem from another angle, as well. Now, I want to get internal PROOF that the MSM has actually made DECISIONS to shut the campaign, and are engaged in a conspiracy(!) to implement those decisions. I'm looking for proof, in the form of memos passed down from on-high, emailed directions, etc.

This is not just one or two people up top that are doing this. EVERYBODY below them must know that the fix is in. So, I'm proposing a monetary bounty, to draw the underlings out. Many of them may still harbor the traces of a heart, with remnants of decency, and belief in good 'ol "fair go". A number of them may just care for their country. And maybe there's even a few closet Ron Paul supporters in there.

Whatever, having a bit of money "grease the wheels" of the whistleblower scheme cannot but be a good thing in terms of making it happen, when it otherwis wouldn't, for fear of causing a stink for no potential reward.

So, I put it out to the grassroots. How much should we be offering? How can this work logistically? We can and sholud guarantee anonymity if they so seek it, but to be awarded dollars, the proof that they provide must be SOLID without their name being attached to it.

Should we shoot for $10,000 for hard evidence? $25,000? $50,000?

How about we just keep kicking funds into it, and it keeps rising...$100,000...$200,000...until someone claims it. But then their proof must be judged as being worthy, somehow. It may only be worth part of it, as it may be weak, and not cause the intended exposure. How can we judge the results of worthy proof? Of course payouts must only be done some time down the track, after the proof has been released, and found to hold water. Some may be fakes which we shall have to be on the alert for. Confirmation of seriousness can be assured by any emails be traceable via headers back to their work address. And we can ring them AT WORK, to ensure that they are serious. Then we keep their identity anonymous, and move forward with exposing the coverup.

What say ye?

I am so down for this!!!

[TruckinMike]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2225/2230304749_77748abe7a_o.jpg

the link: http://www.journalism.org/node/9512

TMIke

[time4change]

How about this? Tim Skubick talks about keeping Ron Paul supporters out of the shots.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tZNlXSn_vC8Submit it to that site: http://www.ronpaultimeline.com/

I just submitted a few AP articles at Yahoo.com that completely excluded him. Feels good to have a place to dump this "news" every time they blatantly exclude Dr. Paul. Thanks Thanehand! :)

[lastnymleft]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2225/2230304749_77748abe7a_o.jpg

the link: http://www.journalism.org/node/9512

TMIke

Thanks, TruckinMike - That's my pic from another project's thread I'm working on. You know the word is spreading when it comes full circle back to you! Now we just need to broaden the circle, and get that info out a bit wider.


Hey OP, have you seen this?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018975.html
Yes; I sent some raw data on the blackout (based on the pic, above) to Lew the other day. I wonder if he followed up on that, to make that enquiry as "friend". Regardless, we'll need to push all this info out to Lew Rockwell, Nolan Chart, and into the blogosphere, local news stations, etc. when we have it ready.


I've been slowly adding each instance of media negativity and blackout to a timeline. Would love help populating the data. Check it out: http://www.RonPaulTimeline.com

That's great work, Thanehand. But I have to say, I have a burning desire to click each entry, to see the actual evidence live, or if taken down, a cached version. Though how readily doable that is with your sql server setup is another issue.