PDA

View Full Version : Report on Presidential Media Coverage - Week of Feb 11th - Feb 17th




lastnymleft
02-20-2008, 10:03 PM
It was released a little late this week, but the latest report on Presidential media coverage by the Project on Excellence(sic) in Journalism has been released:
http://journalism.org/node/9828

Here's the front page graph:
http://journalism.org/files/lead.png

Here's the lead graphic, in which Dr Paul has NEVER appeared:
http://journalism.org/files/u26/Race_for_media_exposure_feb_19.png

Putting things into context, here's a look at the split between Republican and Democrat coverage:
http://journalism.org/files/u26/CCI_by_party_Feb_19_0.png

Here's a look at the coverage over time of all the Presidential candidates that the Project on Excellence in Journalism WANTS to cover:
http://journalism.org/files/u26/Candidates_over_Time_Feb_19.png
Where's the beef (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)?

And here's where we jump for joy at an actual MENTION by this self-named Project on Excellence(sic) in Journalism:
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/9756/mediaexposurebycandidatot5.jpg

So, 0.7% coverage for the week, certainly much more than we've had in the last six weeks. Happy yet? Didn't think so, as:

Hillary Clinton (D) received EIGHTY-ONE TIMES Dr Paul's coverage for the week.
Barack Obama (D) received SEVENTY-NINE TIMES Dr Paul's coverage for the week.
John McCain (R) received FORTY-NINE TIMES Dr Paul's coverage for the week.
Mike Huckabee (R) received TWENTY-SIX TIMES Dr Paul's coverage for the week.
Mitt Romney (R) received EIGHT TIMES Dr Paul's coverage for the week. (Despite him having dropped out some time back)
Bill Clinton received MORE THAN DOUBLE Dr Paul's coverage for the week, despite not even running.

Three weeks after having dropped out, Rudy Giuliani still received more coverage in the last week than Dr Paul received in the run-up to Super Tuesday.

Coverage report on the coverage report:
The report's length was 1323 words, and NONE of them were about Dr Paul, giving Dr Paul a Critic of 'Media Critic's Report on Media Exposure by Candidate' report score of 0.00% of coverage of coverage. That amount of coverage of the coverage is 1.29% less than last week.

If you want to help in trying to get the Project on Excellence(sic) in Journalism to actually properly cover the fact that the media is shutting Dr Paul out of the race, the report's author is Mark Jurkowitz. You won't have much success with him, though. I believe he has an agenda. His boss is: Tom Rosenstiel. Give him a blast at:

http://www.journalism.org/about_pej/contact_us
" If you have comments or questions about PEJ or about our website, please share them with us in the space below. Some of the most frequently asked questions are answered in the FAQ section of the site.

In addition you can reach us by phone at 202-419-3650 or by fax at 202-419-3699.

Or by email: mail@journalism.org.

Or through the mail:
Project for Excellence(sic) in Journalism
1615 L Street N.W. 700
Washington, DC 20036 "

lastnymleft
02-21-2008, 08:43 AM
morning bump

Bruno
02-21-2008, 09:32 AM
Bump.

The MSM continually says RP is polling low, that is why they don't cover him more. If that were in fact the case, they should at least be covering him in according to the percentage he has in national and statewide polls. Therefore, he should at least FAIRLY receive anywhere from 5-15% or more of the media coverage.

lastnymleft
02-21-2008, 03:54 PM
The MSM continually says RP is polling low, that is why they don't cover him more. If that were in fact the case, they should at least be covering him in according to the percentage he has in national and statewide polls. Therefore, he should at least FAIRLY receive anywhere from 5-15% or more of the media coverage.

Oh, to sleep, perchance to dream! If ONLY Dr Paul had proportional coverage! That, plus our organic growth, and we'd win this race. No doubt in my mind.

But ZERO percent significant coverag in the week before Super Tuesday? That's a wilful shutdown. You can even see they shut Huckabee out in the leadup to Super Tuesday...just enough to make sure their main pick did the best.

lastnymleft
02-21-2008, 08:20 PM
Maybe I shouldn't bother with the report, and should just provide a link to the latest one?

lastnymleft
02-21-2008, 10:02 PM
People are generally interested in this stuff, but you wouldn't know it. Maybe I need a snappier title? Suggestions?

justatrey
02-21-2008, 10:14 PM
The MSM continually says RP is polling low, that is why they don't cover him more.

The problem with this excuse is that Paul was beating Giuliani and Thompson consistently in the first few states, but they still received much more coverage.

The truth is that RP is polling low because they don't cover him, not the other way around. Don't forget that Huckabee was right with us for a long time, yet he also got much more coverage.

The "surge" in Huckabee's numbers seen in this graph was when the media decided to start covering him. Same with McCain - the media decided he should have a surge so they created one by giving him nonstop coverage. The media decided for whatever reason that Huckabee should be polling higher so they started covering him.

They never started covering Paul, so he always remained low:

http://www.pollster.com/USTopzReps600.png

On the brightside we're at 6.3% when you average all the current polls which is the highest we've had so far.

Jeremy
02-21-2008, 10:26 PM
The problem with this excuse is that Paul was beating Giuliani and Thompson consistently in the first few states, but they still received much more coverage.

The truth is that RP is polling low because they don't cover him, not the other way around. Don't forget that Huckabee was right with us for a long time, yet he also got much more coverage.

The "surge" in Huckabee's numbers seen in this graph was when the media decided to start covering him. Same with McCain - the media decided he should have a surge so they created one by giving him nonstop coverage. The media decided for whatever reason that Huckabee should be polling higher so they started covering him.

They never started covering Paul, so he always remained low:

http://www.pollster.com/USTopzReps600.png

On the brightside we're at 6.3% when you average all the current polls which is the highest we've had so far.
The graph is almost perfect with media coverage. Huckabee does good in beginning (Iowa) and goes up... but then starts doing bad so it goes down... then Romney drops out so Huck gets more coverage because they need someone else with McCain.

justatrey
02-21-2008, 10:32 PM
The graph is almost perfect with media coverage. Huckabee does good in beginning (Iowa) and goes up... but then starts doing bad so it goes down... then Romney drops out so Huck gets more coverage because they need someone else with McCain.

I don't think it shows Huck getting coverage because he did well in Iowa. Instead, he did well in Iowa because he got a ton of coverage and media hype beforehand - for no apparant reason.

I remember very well when he suddenly started getting a ton of coverage weeks before Iowa.

Jeremy
02-21-2008, 10:34 PM
I know, that's what I'm saying.

IPSecure
02-21-2008, 11:18 PM
The MSM are leading the lemmings off the cliff...

pacelli
02-21-2008, 11:23 PM
So we're up from .02 to .07. Must have been the CNN 30 second piece on Castro and the military donations piece on CNN which was a minute or so.

Isn't it strange that we make such a big deal out of these appearances, but it doesn't really statistically register? This means that we are all very tuned in to what is happening. We are more sensitive than statistical measures.

mconder
02-21-2008, 11:26 PM
Thanks! That says it all.