Ron Paul less than 1% for 7 weeks straight

[Tangoland]

According to Project for Excellance in Journalism http://www.journalism.org/node/10004 - Ron Paul, the Texas Congressman, generated zero coverage as measured by PEJ ’s Index last week, marking at least the seventh straight week he has finished with less than 1% of coverage.

digg this article here:
http://digg.com/politics/PEJ_s_index_shows_Ron_Paul_less_than_1_7th_straigh t_week

www.wakeupamericashow.blogspot.com

[hawks4ronpaul]

According to Project for Excellance in Journalism http://www.journalism.org/node/10004 - Ron Paul, the Texas Congressman, generated zero coverage as measured by PEJ ’s Index last week, marking at least the seventh straight week he has finished with less than 1% of coverage.

digg this article here:
http://digg.com/politics/PEJ_s_index_shows_Ron_Paul_less_than_1_7th_straigh t_week

www.wakeupamericashow.blogspot.com

Does 0% constitute award-winning excellence nowadays?


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[abe447]

It's because he hasn't done anything to garner any coverage. The Democratic race is the big draw right now with a somewhat close race between Hillary and Obama. John McCain has the Republican nomination wrapped up and Huckabee is the only other person in the race with a decent amount of delegates. All four of these people have actually won a state. Ron Paul has not. He has not made any dents in the polls. Paul never made it over 15% in any scientific poll I saw. Winning and rising in the polls equals coverage. Paul did neither.

[Bruno]

It's because he hasn't done anything to garner any coverage. The Democratic race is the big draw right now with a somewhat close race between Hillary and Obama. John McCain has the Republican nomination wrapped up and Huckabee is the only other person in the race with a decent amount of delegates. All four of these people have actually won a state. Ron Paul has not. He has not made any dents in the polls. Paul never made it over 15% in any scientific poll I saw. Winning and rising in the polls equals coverage. Paul did neither.

He has received more than 20% of the vote in some states, and has been approximately 6-9% nationally. At the very least, he should therefore be garnering 6-9% of the media attention.
Texas is his home state, yet you wouldn't even know it by the coverage.

[Grandson of Liberty]

Winning and rising in the polls equals coverage. Paul did neither.

Or perhaps, coverage equals rising in the polls and winning. The media did the job it set out to do.

[phree]

It's because he hasn't done anything to garner any coverage. The Democratic race is the big draw right now with a somewhat close race between Hillary and Obama. John McCain has the Republican nomination wrapped up and Huckabee is the only other person in the race with a decent amount of delegates. All four of these people have actually won a state. Ron Paul has not. He has not made any dents in the polls. Paul never made it over 15% in any scientific poll I saw. Winning and rising in the polls equals coverage. Paul did neither.

Chicken/egg


But thanks for the enlightening post.

[hawks4ronpaul]

It's because he hasn't done anything to garner any coverage. The Democratic race is the big draw right now with a somewhat close race between Hillary and Obama. John McCain has the Republican nomination wrapped up and Huckabee is the only other person in the race with a decent amount of delegates. All four of these people have actually won a state. Ron Paul has not. He has not made any dents in the polls. Paul never made it over 15% in any scientific poll I saw. Winning and rising in the polls equals coverage. Paul did neither.

None of that explains why Paul is lower than Nader, Bloomberg, and Bill Clinton (the last 2 are not even candidates).


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[Politicallore]

That is absolutely sad.

[d03boy]

New Life Goal
1. Disassemble mainstream media even if I have to go behind everyone's house and cut their umbilical cord
2. ???

[terlinguatx]

....

[syborius]

It's because he hasn't done anything to garner any coverage. The Democratic race is the big draw right now with a somewhat close race between Hillary and Obama. John McCain has the Republican nomination wrapped up and Huckabee is the only other person in the race with a decent amount of delegates. All four of these people have actually won a state. Ron Paul has not. He has not made any dents in the polls. Paul never made it over 15% in any scientific poll I saw. Winning and rising in the polls equals coverage. Paul did neither.

Media coverage equals winning and rising in the polls.

[Energy]

Posted in another thread but is relevant here, homepage of CNN:

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4677/img367if5.jpg

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9067/img366xs8.jpg

[Bossobass]

It's because he hasn't done anything to garner any coverage. The Democratic race is the big draw right now with a somewhat close race between Hillary and Obama. John McCain has the Republican nomination wrapped up and Huckabee is the only other person in the race with a decent amount of delegates. All four of these people have actually won a state. Ron Paul has not. He has not made any dents in the polls. Paul never made it over 15% in any scientific poll I saw. Winning and rising in the polls equals coverage. Paul did neither.

From October, after McCain had fired 150 staffers and was in debt with no contributions coming in and remember, at this point, McCain was polling 12% nationally and in a downward spiral for a year.:


Two Republicans were next in media exposure. Giuliani led among Republicans with 9% of the stories, followed by McCain at 7% and Romney at 5%.

They were followed by former Senators John Edwards (4%) and Fred Thompson (3%), whose level of coverage relative to their party rivals probably puts them in what is best considered a second tier. Interestingly, Thompson, the lobbyist, actor and former Tennessee Senator, enjoyed this level of coverage (and name recognition in polling) even though he did not actually enter the race until September.

The rest of the candidates would have to be considered not second-tier but third, at least in media attention. None received more than 2% of the coverage.

Exposure in the press, in other words, may be vital to name recognition, which in turn influences polling and fundraising.

In November:


Five candidates—two Democrats and three Republicans—were the focus of more than half of the coverage (52%). These included New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama among the Democrats and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Senator John McCain, and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the Republican field

Stories like the following one appeared to be prophetic to McCain's soon-to-be rise of 21 points in the polls, due to no apparent reason, as his campaign prepared to borrow $3million just to get through December. I defy anyone to explain that sudden rise in media, followed by the rise in the polls, followed by a win in NH.


As we all saw on the Fox News ticker, "GOOD NEWS FOR MCCAIN ... FOX NEWS POLL SHOWS THE AZ SENATOR DOING BEST AMONG GOP CANDIDATES WHEN MATCHED UP AGAINST SEN HILLARY CLINTON."

Media attention isn't explained by any of the BS reasons given in these threads by posters like abe. First the pundits said RP got no attention because he didn't register in double digits in any polls. Then they said it was because he didn't have any money. When he out raised everyone in the 4th quarter and polled in double digits, he still got no media.

RP won the majority of straw polls nationally, won every debate by every polling method, raised the most of any R in the 4th quarter, was the only candidate to increase donations every quarter of '07, received more donations from troops than all candidates combined, had a blimp, drew crowds to his rallies second only to Obama/Oprah, dominated Digg, Myspace, You Tube, the blogosphere, Facebook and Meetup, and won a miraculous 10% in Iowa, yet he finished at the bottom of the media coverage charts every month for a year.

People who seek lame BS to justify the media blackout bring a stench of denial and wannabe pundit to these forums, the likes of which I've never seen before in any forum.

Bosso

[Catatonic]

From October, after McCain had fired 150 staffers and was in debt with no contributions coming in and remember, at this point, McCain was polling 12% nationally and in a downward spiral for a year.:



In November:



Stories like the following one appeared to be prophetic to McCain's soon-to-be rise of 21 points in the polls, due to no apparent reason, as his campaign prepared to borrow $3million just to get through December. I defy anyone to explain that sudden rise in media, followed by the rise in the polls, followed by a win in NH.



Media attention isn't explained by any of the BS reasons given in these threads by posters like abe. First the pundits said RP got no attention because he didn't register in double digits in any polls. Then they said it was because he didn't have any money. When he out raised everyone in the 4th quarter and polled in double digits, he still got no media.

RP won the majority of straw polls nationally, won every debate by every polling method, raised the most of any R in the 4th quarter, was the only candidate to increase donations every quarter of '07, received more donations from troops than all candidates combined, had a blimp, drew crowds to his rallies second only to Obama/Oprah, dominated Digg, Myspace, You Tube, the blogosphere, Facebook and Meetup, and won a miraculous 10% in Iowa, yet he finished at the bottom of the media coverage charts every month for a year.

People who seek lame BS to justify the media blackout bring a stench of denial and wannabe pundit to these forums, the likes of which I've never seen before in any forum.

Bosso


Well said.

[Vet_from_cali]

No Surprise Here















































At All

[kigol]

dugg.

[Tangoland]

bump