Does negative press help or hurt Ron Paul right now?

[paulitics]

In your gut, what do you think? Does the negative press accomplish its goal, or does the mainstream media have such a credibility problem right now, that it is backfiring? Is any publicity good publicity for a guy who is at around 10% recognition?

[wgadget]

I'm thinking it might backfire. Today I was at the Boortz show when Boortz actually said it was ROMNEY who the Paul supporters "wanted to throw off the boat."

I wrote him a note correcting him, and he admitted it on the air, but SHEESH, if he can't even get the characters straight, who's gonna believe the REST of his story???

[Chester Copperpot]

Every time Ron Paul gets attacked on his positions and beliefs remember this, they not only are fighting Ron Paul but the combined wisdom of all the founding fathers.. This is why every time they attack Ron Paul it only brings him MORE attention.. They are creating attention through hyped up controversy to try and discredit Ron, but they can never make the discredit stick, so we're left up with all the attention that they have created. Look at Rudy do you think he'll ever challenge Ron Paul again? Only if and when Ron is beating him at the polls.. and by then itll be too late for him.

[constituent]

you bet it helps. people see them for what they are...

they only continue to "tune in" for the sake of "tuning out"

[Matt Collins]

I believe the godfather of PR, P.T. Barnum said "there is no such thing as bad publicity"

[theseus51]

It just comes with the territory. You cannot get widespread media attention without being attacked. Think of the candidates with the most name recognition, and how often they are attacked for their positions (or lack of positions).

I know obviously that negative attacks are bad, but it's also a good sign. Nobody goes out of their way to attack Sam Brownback. I mean you can't expect to get lots of name recognition and have everyone leave you alone. It just doesn't work that way. Grassroots supporters, media pundits, and other politicians attack politicians with name recognition, so try not to be shocked when it happens.

Of course when your opponents start calling you out by name, then you know you've hit it big. =)

[Brock Landers]

I'd say some of it hurts and some of it helps. If name recognition were all RP needed then I'd lean toward the latter. But Ahmadinejad certainly has plenty of 'name recognition' right now, and that sure ain't quieting down the beat of the war drums.

I'm not saying you can avoid negative coverage, or that we should focus much on it, but we shouldn't thank O'Rielly and other jackasses for putting Ron's face on TV, if they present his views in an unfair light. We should just keep track of all their lies and misrepresentations, so they can be held accountable at some point.

[quickmike]

In your gut, what do you think? Does the negative press accomplish its goal, or does the mainstream media have such a credibility problem right now, that it is backfiring? Is any publicity good publicity for a guy who is at around 10% recognition?

Right now my gut tells me I need to eat some lunch since I skipped breakfast this morning. Also, my gut tells me that Ron is in that inbetween stage where negative press doesnt help him any more than it hurts him. I guess it depends who hears that negative press. Some people might hear it and write him off as a joke, while others who are "hip" to the MSM's bullshit wont just take what they say as gospel and go check Ron out for themselves.

Thats just me though. I could be wrong.

[Dary]

Negative press is when your candidate says or does something stupid.

Attacks by OM Neo-Cons are compliments.

[Ridiculous]

I think that when the MSM labels him as fringe for having the "conspiracy theorist vote" and associates his supporters with the Truther movement it is negative.

I think that one of the keys to Paul's success is to let the MSM know that his supporters aren't just the "Lone Gunmen" type but "Everyday Americans" that they can identify with. People need to be able to identify with a candidates supporters.

See, the negative pieces from MSM sources on the other candidates are attacking the candidates, not their supporters.

If the average person hears someone is a Thompson or a Obama supporter, they just think that they are a R or a D or whatever. They don't think they are crazy or nuts. With Paul, there is this picture that the MSM is trying to pain that his supporters are crazy or nutty. No one wants to be associated with a group of nuts. We need to show them that Paul supporters are Joe Average americans and not conspiracy kooks.

Hit pieces directed at Paul himself probably aren't as bad. There are plenty of hit pieces written on Giuliani, Hillary etc that aren't coming from the Paul camp. It is inevitable and just goes to show that he is being noticed.

[rwl4]

Unfortunately people are sheep and tend to have an implicit trust in media as I always ignorantly have. It's after really researching Dr Paul and watching what the media has done to him that I've realized just how skilled they really are at spinning everything to get across their agenda.

If I'm an average Joe who enjoys watching Fox News Channel (i.e. my recently deceased grandfather), and I see my favorite news shows talking about some wacko named Ron Paul who has all these crazy ideas, I'm going to watch every clip and debate with an expectation that he's crazy. I'll listen for every little sign of something "crazy" he says and I'll mock it and say to myself "now that's a crazy man." When my trusted news anchors say "He's got his supporters voting for him on the phone polls" I'm going to think, "Wow! He's got a bunch of his crazy supporters out in force!!"

The beautiful thing about this all though is that Dr Paul is such a great speaker, has such an upstanding character, and just makes so much sense when you spend more than 5 minutes listening to him.

[jonahtrainer]

In your gut, what do you think? Does the negative press accomplish its goal, or does the mainstream media have such a credibility problem right now, that it is backfiring? Is any publicity good publicity for a guy who is at around 10% recognition?

I think any press is good press. If anyone is inaccurate with their story it will backfire on them and they will get 'blowback.' Sunlight is the best disinfectant and YouTube is a 1 billion candle power spotlight where traditionally there have only been 10,000 candle power flashlights.

I know when I talk with a friend and get confronted with with an inaccuracy from the MSM I rebut it with the actual statement from a YouTube. Then I make a statement like this 'It appears Fox/CNN intentionally misrepresented this position. What else could be inaccurate and who benefits. Why believe them?'

Destroying the creditability of the irresponsible members of the MSM is extremely important. Here is an example of the intense spotlight of YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ).

[maiki]

It depends how negative. Sort of negative I think is neutral: people notice he is a candidate of note, but not sure what to think. Very negative press always hurts, since people on the fence will just write him off.

[erowe1]

One of the things that a long presidential campaign accomplishes is that is puts candidates through the ringer. The ones who can't find ways to deal with the pressure and the criticism fail. For someone in Paul's shoes, negative press is in some ways a necessary evil. He simply has to find ways to take responsibility for getting his message out successfully and learning how to use the press to his advantage. There's a certain learning process involved that he simply can't avoid. If he succeeds, then this process will make him a better president. If he fails due to the cruel survical-of-the-fittest nature of campaigning, then he's not cut out to lead.

[Blowback]

I think Ron should have sex on hidden camera with a groupie and then have it "accidentally" leaked... kind of like Paris Hilton.

That would be big time.

[American]

People that have always need to be spoon fed information will still need to be spoon fed information. I think its a mixed bag really.

[Taco John]

It would have been awesome if they would have actually THROWN Rudy off the boat. We could have called it the NY Tea Party.

I bet there was some bad press about the real Boston Tea Party. Think it helped or hurt them? ;)