MSM Damage Control - "he's an isolationist ... he's an isolationist"

[hard@work]

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/&search=MSNBC&q=ron%20paul%20fundraising&submit=Search&id=11881780&FORM=AE&gs=1&os=10&fg=&from=00&vid=911a8242-d311-42e5-88ad-f54093eec58a&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:News_Editors%20 Picks,2:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A&wa=wsignin1.0


Watch how she is being told to say it. You can SEE her looking at them telling her what to say. Then they try to deflate it with McCain.

Unbelievable.

[steph3n]

Yes I have the clip on youtube from phone recording too:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2hWJy_-2LWM

At least on youtube we can note the inaccuracy.

[Johnnybags]

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/&search=MSNBC&q=ron%20paul%20fundraising&submit=Search&id=11881780&FORM=AE&gs=1&os=10&fg=&from=00&vid=911a8242-d311-42e5-88ad-f54093eec58a&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:News_Editors%20 Picks,2:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A&wa=wsignin1.0


Watch how she is being told to say it. You can SEE her looking at them telling her what to say. Then they try to deflate it with McCain.

Unbelievable.

Apparently her handler at the station was telling her Isolationist,Isolationist,Isolationist. ALL mail servers at msnbc are down, good work guys's. Nora has no clue what she is even reporting.

[nullvalu]

I seen that too and I got immediately pissed and sent them a comment on the video.. who do we email on this?!?

[kalami]

"get rid of taxes"

sometimes I think "the media is out to get" Ron Paul thing is really overblown and it's pieces like this that make renew my convictions that the media is indeed against Ron Paul

[BW4Paul]

*Sigh*

Well, we knew that they'd spin it somehow-- we just didn't know which way. :o

I guess we can just meet this challenge like we've met all the others. :)

[BuddyRey]

That's nothing. Some prick from the Washington Post just said "I guess he's picking up the extraterrestrial vote." WTF?!?!?! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[KewlRonduderules]

He...is... AN ISOLATIONIST...

He... is... AN ISOLATIONIST...

LMOA!!!

It was so obvious it was pathetic.

[speciallyblend]

Please have all contact info i had started a thread right before crash ,ill bump it or combine,we need to counter this ASAP i guess it might not of posted,so anyone have the contact info i can call once im at work and email

[hard@work]

I'm not standing for this anymore. Anyone have their contact info? I'd like to make a cordial but stern phone call to let them know we're watching and using their misleading commentary against them.

[CodeMonkey]

She sounded scared and confused.

[speciallyblend]

ill try to get info by 3 colorado time

[richard1984]

How many more times is Dr. Paul going to have to have to retort these idiots?
Stupid people.... :mad:

And yet...Ron Paul still rules!!!! :D

[fletcher]

That's nothing. Some prick from the Washington Post just said "I guess he's picking up the extraterrestrial vote." WTF?!?!?! :mad: :mad: :mad:

That pissed me off. He followed it up by saying 'Ron Paul is not going to be President'. MSNBC is doing their best to discredit Dr. Paul.

[richard1984]

She sounded scared and confused.

This is much scarier than, say, the strong possibility of bombing Iran, huh? Poor media slime.... :rolleyes:

[murrayrothbard]

She sounded scared and confused.

probably the producers' yelling in her earpiece caught her off guard

[nullvalu]

That pissed me off. He followed it up by saying 'Ron Paul is not going to be President'. MSNBC is doing their best to discredit Dr. Paul.

Yeah, and I thought we had more "friends" there than anywhere else.. Just goes to show you, can't trust any of these damn networks.

I need an email address or phone number for these jerks ASAP.

[RP08]

That's so screwed! I'm pissed. Spin or no spin, that was a blatant attack on an already heavily mis-understood and highly sensitive (to many) topic.

Isolationist = Kim Jong-Il of N. Korea.

Ron Paul = promotion of sharing ideas, technologies, products, services, etc. with the world. He is the oposite of "isolationist".

[Shellshock1918]

Wow, "get rid of taxes" don't be stupid. That is a clear and deliberate LIE. Its not isolationism you RETARDS.

[IowaSupport]

^ Agreed.

I've never been a part of a Ron Paul mass e-mailing before - but this is unacceptable.

Any neocon who pulled this would be mentioned every 5 minutes and their positions would be glorified.

An e-mail address to vent on this will be a nice cap to my lunch break.

[richard1984]

That's nothing. Some prick from the Washington Post just said "I guess he's picking up the extraterrestrial vote." WTF?!?!?! :mad: :mad: :mad:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That's AWESOME!

Our victory is guaranteed for sure then. If there's anything the Neocons really fear (the one exception to their perpetual constipation) it's the extraterrestrials and their technology and powerful influences. We're gonna win now for sure!!!

;) ;)

That's insane.... :rolleyes:

Who are the "kooks" again?? :confused:

[SouthernGuy15]

First of all, when it comes to usage of the military the USA should be an isolationist! We should NEVER get involved in the wars and conflicts of other nations. We should also NEVER start such wars and conflicts (for example Iraq).

What these pathetic mainstream media freaks don't want to admit is that in other ways Ron Paul is not isolationist at all. He DESIRES trade with other nations. He DESIRES to negotiate with other nations (instead of bombing them like the neo-cons). Obviously, he would promote tourism and travel to other nations.

These dumb neo-con nazis think that any policy that does not involve "policing the world" is isolationist. They are screwed up.

[DrNoZone]

I'm as pissed off about their tone as the rest of you. But please, once we have contact information, KEEP IT CIVIL! Take the high road, don't stoop to their name calling and blatant attacks.

But over $5 million, an increase of %114! Especially when other campaigns were down by as much as 55%...that is music to my ears!

[speciallyblend]

we need to email/call in great numbers for a correction and maybe give them a list of true issue talking points

[Danny Molina]

Everyone should write Joe Scarborough see if he can clear things up on Morning Joe.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/

you could try Dan Abrams too.

[max]

He...is... AN ISOLATIONIST...

He... is... AN ISOLATIONIST...

LMOA!!!

It was so obvious it was pathetic.

and dont forget "a gadfly"

[TooConservative]

She sounded scared and confused.

Maybe they're threatening her career if she doesn't read their little hit-script for them. She might have some journalistic integrity and objected to reading something so false.

[richard1984]

I'm as pissed off about their tone as the rest of you. But please, once we have contact information, KEEP IT CIVIL! Take the high road, don't stoop to their name calling and blatant attacks.

Yeah. I figure that may be what they're actually going for right now--more ammo to use against Ron Paul supporters. When they report that Ron Paul supporters are like a crazy, kooky, "Truther" cult, it actually tends to have an effect of those "other" people (who don't support Ron Paul--yet).
When people are rude, overtly angry, and obscene/profane, they really hurt the campaign--they are hurting Ron Paul!
We need to start trying to get people to write polite professional/business-type emails to the corporate media. They're obvious trying to piss us off at this point.
Kill 'em with kindness. It'll confuse them, and maybe even overload their circuits.

[Spike Kojima]

To: feedback@msnbc.com
Subject: Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Please correct this mistake.
Sent: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:48:28 -0400

did not reach the following recipient(s):

feedback@msnbc.com on Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:53:37 -0400
Unable to deliver the message due to a communications failure
The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=us;a=
;p=msnbc;l=MSNBCSECEX50710031853TV0RFKBS
MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:MSNBC01:MSNBCSECEX5

SIGH!?...
I'm new to g-mail, but does this mean they are getting swamped?

[Original_Intent]

Wow. Get that on Youtube and get it rated, favorited, whatever you can do.

Even though this is meant as an attack, her obvious fear and rambling repetition of "he's an isolationist", "gadfly", and my personal favorite "What does it say when some congreesman, named ron paul from Texas is outraising McCain?"

We have got to bury these fools. Time for some internet jiu-jitsu!

[CodeMonkey]

SIGH!?...
I'm new to g-mail, but does this mean they are getting swamped?

Pretty much.

[BuddyRey]

Wow. Get that on Youtube and get it rated, favorited, whatever you can do.

Even though this is meant as an attack, her obvious fear and rambling repetition of "he's an isolationist", "gadfly", and my personal favorite "What does it say when some congreesman, named ron paul from Texas is outraising McCain?"

We have got to bury these fools. Time for some internet jiu-jitsu!

Yeah, and could someone PLEASE YouTube that putz who called us "the extraterrestrial vote", so we can all laugh at him?

[RP08]

Wow. Get that on Youtube and get it rated, favorited, whatever you can do.

Even though this is meant as an attack, her obvious fear and rambling repetition of "he's an isolationist", "gadfly", and my personal favorite "What does it say when some congreesman, named ron paul from Texas is outraising McCain?"

We have got to bury these fools. Time for some internet jiu-jitsu!


Hannity will have a blast with that one, and his mind-drained audience will add that to "tinfoil hat" as an excuse to trash-talk the one man with true conviction and principal running for President.

This is like one of those sweet hot sauces. On one hand I want to start celebrating our new future President at the announcement of his 114% donations increase in a single 3 months, and on the other, I want to put my fist through whatever producer, writer, or whomever told that reporter to push "isolationist" on dumb Americans who WILLLLLLLLLLLLL believe it, as incorrect as it is.

[speciallyblend]

We need to keep emailing and calling etc ,if anyone hets phone numbers and emails for shows etc msnbc,lets start a sticky and a thread to focus our decent nice responses to this insanity. We must respond to this crap, again and again

[Chester Copperpot]

Everyone should write Joe Scarborough see if he can clear things up on Morning Joe.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/

you could try Dan Abrams too.

Joe Scarborough is a true friend of Ron Paul.. Contact him quickly.. My friend works for Joe personally and has told me that BY October 15th, he is most likely out of a job with MSNBC... even though hes the highest rated show on MSNBC since Imus

[IRO-bot]

They just took down the Video guys!!!!

[Freedom]

That's nothing. Some prick from the Washington Post just said "I guess he's picking up the extraterrestrial vote." WTF?!?!?! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it against campaign donation laws for extraterrestrials to donate to campaigns? :rolleyes:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

First of all, when it comes to usage of the military the USA should be an isolationist! We should NEVER get involved in the wars and conflicts of other nations. We should also NEVER start such wars and conflicts (for example Iraq).

What these pathetic mainstream media freaks don't want to admit is that in other ways Ron Paul is not isolationist at all. He DESIRES trade with other nations. He DESIRES to negotiate with other nations (instead of bombing them like the neo-cons). Obviously, he would promote tourism and travel to other nations.

These dumb neo-con nazis think that any policy that does not involve "policing the world" is isolationist. They are screwed up.

actually, we could. if congress voted to, we would. btw protectionism = isolationism, Duncan Hunter IS a protectionist. They don't seem to understand the meaning of the word :)

[Taco John]

This is hilarious... These people are shell shocked. They're reporting it like they're at a funeral.

[Original_Intent]

They just took down the Video guys!!!!

I hope someone captured it. Seriously the MORE play we can get that video, the more it is going to help us.

That is the mainstream, Old Media having a Giuliani moment, open hostility and fear in their eyes.

[Danny Molina]

Joe Scarborough is a true friend of Ron Paul.. Contact him quickly.. My friend works for Joe personally and has told me that BY October 15th, he is most likely out of a job with MSNBC... even though hes the highest rated show on MSNBC since Imus

Man that really sucks. I stay up every morning passed 3AM so I could atleast watch an hour of Morning Joe.

[nullvalu]

They just took down the Video guys!!!!

Yep but the First Read story is still up, post a comment there..

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/03/394012.aspx

[Danny Molina]

They're discussing Ron Paul again!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

They're discussing Ron Paul again!

uh where??

[devil21]

They keep checking in with "experts" and they all take shots at Ron Paul.

Btw, the video is still there:
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/&fg=&from=00&vid=911a8242-d311-42e5-88ad-f54093eec58a&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:News_Editors%20 Picks:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A

[bishop1847]

"$5 Million dollars...what's up with that???"

Someone from the Washington Post said that's great, and then said something (after saying he donated $4 million of it) about people having a sense of humor (?)

[RP08]

I hope someone captured it. Seriously the MORE play we can get that video, the more it is going to help us.

That is the mainstream, Old Media having a Giuliani moment, open hostility and fear in their eyes.


err... I dunno 'bout that. See, we are knowledge-people. We are the exception, not the norm. The vast majority of people swing by whatever they see/hear in an instant.

I know people, personally, that would see that and I could talk to them for an hour about how it's the oposite from the truth, but they'd still walk away thinking "there's gotta' be something funky about that Ron Paul guy" anyway.

Just a thought....

[richard1984]

This is hilarious... These people are shell shocked. They're reporting it like they're at a funeral.

Haha! Yeah. I noticed the funeral mood as well.
We can still point and laugh, though, right?

[IRO-bot]

it says on mine, Sorry this video is unavailable.

[Ninja Homer]

"$5 Million dollars...what's up with that???"

Someone from the Washington Post said that's great, and then said something (after saying he donated $4 million of it) about people having a sense of humor (?)

I saw it, and didn't get that comment either. They both kept glancing off to the side as if they were looking for what they were supposed to say.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

is the last update on RP's numbers though? or an unofficial ammount? can it rise anymore?

[Danny Molina]

uh where??

It was more of a mention.

here's what was said.

Anchor lady: Ron Paul on the republican said raising $5 million dollars? What's up with that?

Some guy: That's terrific and you know I only contributed 4 million of that. There's alot of people in the country with a sense of humor and we should applaud Ron Paul for that.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It was more of a mention.

here's what was said.

Anchor lady: Ron Paul on the republican said raising $5 million dollars? What's up with that?

Some guy: That's terrific and you know I only contributed 4 million of that. There's alot of people in the country with a sense of humor and we should applaud Ron Paul for that.

which station??

[Danny Molina]

which station??

MSNBC same woman that called him an isolationist I think.

[nullvalu]

which station??

MSNBC.. I tried emailing feedback@msnbc.com and the mail was returned "communications problem with server"

[Original_Intent]

err... I dunno 'bout that. See, we are knowledge-people. We are the exception, not the norm. The vast majority of people swing by whatever they see/hear in an instant.

I know people, personally, that would see that and I could talk to them for an hour about how it's the oposite from the truth, but they'd still walk away thinking "there's gotta' be something funky about that Ron Paul guy" anyway.

Just a thought....

Yeah that is why it is like the Giuliani moment in the May debate.

I mean we all thought we were screwed by that exchange. But the Ron Paul crowd kept playing it over and over and the Giuliani people did not play it as a "winning moment".

If we promote this and lots of comments about "look how scared she is" and "why are they calling him an isolationist, he is more in favor of open trade than anyone" - if Ron Paul supporters PUSH this video, then it kind of whacks people upside the head, the first thing they think is WHY are his supporters posting a video of their candidate getting bashed?" It makes them realize all is not as it appears. It may not get through to everyone, but I think we could make this a big winner.

[bishop1847]

which station??

I think I just saw that on MSNBC.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

MSNBC.. I tried emailing feedback@msnbc.com and the mail was returned "communications problem with server"

lol

[IRO-bot]

I am looking forward to what "FAUX NEWS" has to say about this. They have nothing up yet.

[Danny Molina]

Everyone should write Joe Scarborough see if he can clear things up on Morning Joe.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/

you could try Dan Abrams too.

[richard1984]

MSNBC.. I tried emailing feedback@msnbc.com and the mail was returned "communications problem with server"

I sure hope the emails are polite and professional.
You know they'd probably love to change the focus and talk about the crazy Ron Paul supporters and their wild emails before Ron Paul himself and his Q3 totals.

[pcosmar]

Well I sent them a response here
corrections@feedback.msnbc.com

Hi there,
Today Oct 3 2007, you ran a story about Ron Paul and his reported Fund raising.
I wish to point out an inaccuracy. The announcer described him as an "Isolationist". In fact several times in the piece she used this term.
Ron Paul is a Republican. He is also a Constitutionalist. He is not and never has been an Isolationist.
This term is false and misleading.
Unless your purpose was to mislead, I would hope you would correct this, now and in the future.
Thank you.
Peter Osmar
I don't know if it does any good, but they need to hear it.

[nullvalu]

I simply wrote:

Ron Paul is NOT an Isolationist

Either this is an outright lie, or terrible journalism!! Either way, you need to issue an aplogy and clarification IMMEDIATELY.

Not necessarily polite, but I don't know how else to put it.

[devil21]

I sent an email to viewerservices@msnbc.com and that one got bounced too. For shits and giggles I sent a different test email to that same address to see if maybe they were filtering out any emails with Ron Paul in them but that one bounced back. We crashed their email servers lol!

[RP08]

Yeah that is why it is like the Giuliani moment in the May debate.

I mean we all thought we were screwed by that exchange. But the Ron Paul crowd kept playing it over and over and the Giuliani people did not play it as a "winning moment".

If we promote this and lots of comments about "look how scared she is" and "why are they calling him an isolationist, he is more in favor of open trade than anyone" - if Ron Paul supporters PUSH this video, then it kind of whacks people upside the head, the first thing they think is WHY are his supporters posting a video of their candidate getting bashed?" It makes them realize all is not as it appears. It may not get through to everyone, but I think we could make this a big winner.


I, personally agree, and my wife would get it, but man... I gotta' tell ya'... I'm still playing clean-up after the "we're responsible for 9/11" spin. While some may have come around over the month or so, many are still scratching their heads. LOTS of congregations are stuck on that spin now too. It's wrenching, but people think that if you tell them something REALLY REALLY crazy, then someone else comes and diffuses it, then surely there must be something still there in the middle.

I'm not trying to argue with you. You have a good point brother. I'm just sharing my own personal opinion on that. It's definitely iffy.

[knightk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv2jSYZtKW4

heres a youtube link for the vid from msnbc

[Thurston Howell III]

When they call him an isolationist, just once I wish someone would say STOP, and ask them ... Define that , what do you mean by isolationist, and make them answer, because they could be proved and documented wrong in about two seconds. These broad stroke comments are made solely for effect and they are so shallow I just wish someone would press them on that issue. Often when forced to substantiate their position they fail, they just have to be forced.

[DrNoZone]

My email to MSNBC:

I watched the story you ran today, Oct. 3rd, about Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul's amazing fundraising numbers for the 3rd quarter. During the report he was inexplicably referred to as an "isolationist" more than once. Ron Paul is anything but an isolationist. He desires to trade and talk with ANY nation in the world, but he does not agree with the current administration's empire building militarism.

Please retract and correct this false and slanderous statement.

[richard1984]

I simply wrote:

Ron Paul is NOT an Isolationist

Either this is an outright lie, or terrible journalism!! Either way, you need to issue an aplogy and clarification IMMEDIATELY.

Not necessarily polite, but I don't know how else to put it.

It's not obscene or crazy sounding, though.

I'm trying to remember where Dr. Paul has responded to this accusation before so that I can quote him.
Does anyone remember?

[wgadget]

I'm as pissed off about their tone as the rest of you. But please, once we have contact information, KEEP IT CIVIL! Take the high road, don't stoop to their name calling and blatant attacks.

But over $5 million, an increase of %114! Especially when other campaigns were down by as much as 55%...that is music to my ears!

And in $40 donations. That must mean that most of those supporters are NOT MAXED OUT, and there's more where that came from.

That's how it is in my case. Now that he's doing so well, I guess I'll just have to cough up the other $1800!!!

LOL. Loved the "sore" looks on that woman's face. She looked like she needed some Pepto-Bismol.

[nullvalu]

My email to MSNBC:

...



Where did you send this and was it bounced?

[CodeMonkey]

It's not obscene or crazy sounding, though.

I'm trying to remember where Dr. Paul has responded to this accusation before so that I can quote him.
Does anyone remember?

He has to correct that assertion in probably half of his interviews.

[richard1984]

When they call him an isolationist, just once I wish someone would say STOP, and ask them ... Define that , what do you mean by isolationist, and make them answer, because they could be proved and documented wrong in about two seconds.

That would be too...uhh..."smart."
They don't claim to offer "intelligent," thoughtful reporting.
It's propaganda central, after all. :rolleyes:

[richard1984]

He has to correct that assertion in probably half of his interviews.

...with the corporate media.

[DrNoZone]

Where did you send this and was it bounced?

I sent it here: corrections@feedback.msnbc.com

And it didn't bounce.

I hope that was the right address!

[1000-points-of-fright]

What really pisses me of are the comments that he's not a Republican, he's a Libertarian. Don't they realize that the only reason the Libertarian party exists is because the GOP stopped being republican decades ago?

[nullvalu]

I sent it here: corrections@feedback.msnbc.com

And it didn't bounce.

I hope that was the right address!

Sweet I'll try sending there too

[wgadget]

Oh? I thought he was in the Isolationist Party, by the way they said that....LOL.

[Bodhi]

I sent it here: corrections@feedback.msnbc.com

And it didn't bounce.

I hope that was the right address!

I sent a polite e-mail there as well about 10 mintes ago and it didn't bounce.

[paulitics]

I, personally agree, and my wife would get it, but man... I gotta' tell ya'... I'm still playing clean-up after the "we're responsible for 9/11" spin. While some may have come around over the month or so, many are still scratching their heads. LOTS of congregations are stuck on that spin now too. It's wrenching, but people think that if you tell them something REALLY REALLY crazy, then someone else comes and diffuses it, then surely there must be something still there in the middle.

I'm not trying to argue with you. You have a good point brother. I'm just sharing my own personal opinion on that. It's definitely iffy.

That something in the middle is called the hegelian dialectic of thesis + antithesis = synthesis
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm

[nullvalu]

I sent a polite e-mail there as well about 10 mintes ago and it didn't bounce.

Sweet, doesn't look like it's bouncing for me either.. Send your emails here: corrections@feedback.msnbc.com - remember be polite but demand an apology and clarification.

[devil21]

Their email seems to be back up now. Just sent to viewerservices@msnbc.com again and it didnt bounce. Send em now!

edit: oops just bounced back.

[fletcher]

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm


I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Correct the error before you send this to anyone. We in the last sentence should be mean.

[richard1984]

That something in the middle is called the hegelian dialectic of thesis + antithesis = synthesis
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm

Haha! Great job incorporating Hegel. While he's not my favorite read ever (he's a bit difficult to understand), I sure wish people in general were more educated--especially in philosophy.
We wouldn't have nearly the problems in our country if we were actually allowed to get a good education starting early (I got into philosophy early in high school, and that's what I should have been able to study--instead the system made me waste my time and my mind).
Anyway...:cool:

[emilysdad]

Dear MSNBC:

Dr. Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

Exposing the True Isolationists
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst072307.htm

Please direct your political research team here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

Thank you.

[Roxi]

i don't know how to copy it or anything but i have the video still up from earlier, as long as you don't let it play all the way through it will stay on there... any idea how to download it? ive tried all the ones i could find and none would work... or is it already on YouTube?

[nullvalu]

i don't know how to copy it or anything but i have the video still up from earlier, as long as you don't let it play all the way through it will stay on there... any idea how to download it? ive tried all the ones i could find and none would work... or is it already on YouTube?

already on YT, look back in this thread, someone posted the link

[Question_Authority]

Everyone should write Joe Scarborough see if he can clear things up on Morning Joe.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/

you could try Dan Abrams too.

AND Tucker Carlson. He has said "Ron Paul is my man". Although for some reason he often does not even mention him when discussing the Republican candidates.


GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

[Pete]

Took my shot:

Dear MSNBC,

Overall, I've thought that your coverage of controversial candidate Ron Paul has so far been very evenhanded, and I thank you for it.

Today, however, Norah O'Donnell made some remarks about Rep. Paul that I can only characterize as peculiar:


She referred to Ron Paul as an "isolationist" when in fact he is a "non-interventionist", promoting a strong defense, bilateral trade, and strong diplomacy. His approach harkens back to a greater America than we are accustomed to.
She said he would "get rid of taxes", which was frankly ignorant, and I hope I don't need to explain.
She used the term "gadfly" to refer to him, which after the the other misstatements I took as being pejorative.

Like I said, MSNBC's coverage of Ron Paul's campaign thus far gets a thumbs up, and I encourage you to maintain your journalistic excellence.

All the best,

Pete

[Nickel]

Email sent.

[hornet]

taco john thats exactly what i was thinking.......damn who died?:eek:

[Wilkero]

Wolf Blitzer just teased that he is going to talk about Ron Paul in the next couple of segments on CNN with Begala and someone else.

[DrNoZone]

Ok, guys, check this out. MSNBC has EDITED the original video where Norah O'Donnell looks all confused as if she's being guided on what to say as she says RP is an "isolationist". They don't even show her image but for the first few brief seconds of the clip; they cut to a static picture of RP right when she says "isolationist" for the first time and then continue to show RP's picture until they bring Jonathan Alter on (a full 30 seconds).

What a bunch of sneaky little bastards. They knew it looked so staged and scripted, so they changed it!

[Nathan Hale]

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/&search=MSNBC&q=ron%20paul%20fundraising&submit=Search&id=11881780&FORM=AE&gs=1&os=10&fg=&from=00&vid=911a8242-d311-42e5-88ad-f54093eec58a&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:News_Editors%20 Picks,2:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A&wa=wsignin1.0


Watch how she is being told to say it. You can SEE her looking at them telling her what to say. Then they try to deflate it with McCain.

Unbelievable.

Let's stop looking at this as some vast conspiracy. They call Paul an isolationist because many people conflate military isolationism with isolationism in general. Paul IS a military isolationist. The difference between that and a philosophical isolation is that Paul supports free trade and travel. He needs to make that point every time he's interviewed by the MSM and eventually it'll sink in.

[DrNoZone]

Let's stop looking at this as some vast conspiracy. They call Paul an isolationist because many people conflate military isolationism with isolationism in general. Paul IS a military isolationist. The difference between that and a philosophical isolation is that Paul supports free trade and travel. He needs to make that point every time he's interviewed by the MSM and eventually it'll sink in.

I never said it was a conspiracy. I'm saying, she looked like she was being scripted and looked confused about what she was saying. MSNBC realized how foolish it looked and they edited it out.

[steph3n]

I told people they would change it on chat (forums were down)

I caught it on camera phone pretty quick:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2hWJy_-2LWM

[DrNoZone]

I love all of the "Uhh...uhhh...uhhh...uhhh" comments from her. It's so glaringly obvious that she knows nothing about Ron Paul and is grasping at straws.

[devil21]

Shes gotta be looking at hand written cue cards to get her dialogue points since she rarely looks at the camera, where the normal teleprompter is.

[RPTXState]

Are their any good flyers (printable preferred) that counter the isolationist claim?

[Thurston Howell III]

I'll bet that twinky can't even define isolationist. She's kind of an older unit too, they don't usually keep'em around that long.

[Nathan Hale]

I never said it was a conspiracy. I'm saying, she looked like she was being scripted and looked confused about what she was saying. MSNBC realized how foolish it looked and they edited it out.

You're implying motive here. Of course she's scripted, all newspeople read from a prompter. If MSNBC edited it out, it's because she didn't give a good take and it looks bad to replay (or play the first time if they had a good enough delay) poor footage. The media isn't ramming the term "isolationist" down our throats as a matter of conscious motive - it's simply the most accurate term in the colloquial repertoire.

[hard@work]

Let's stop looking at this as some vast conspiracy. They call Paul an isolationist because many people conflate military isolationism with isolationism in general. Paul IS a military isolationist. The difference between that and a philosophical isolation is that Paul supports free trade and travel. He needs to make that point every time he's interviewed by the MSM and eventually it'll sink in.

Actually I think I'll go ahead and keep looking at it as a vast conspiracy. But I see it as a conspiracy of ignorance as opposed to an intelligent well thought out back room conspiracy. Although I think they exist, I pay little attention to them and prefer focus on what I can do in front of me. Much of what I've seen as far as coverage or lack of coverage has been in proportion to the punditry's lack of knowledge. I'm quite able to believe that producers and other at the street level employees of the news media let their bias shine on through, I think this is a shining example of that idiocy displayed for all of us to see. This isn't a targeted conspiracy - just a dumb one.

In my humble opinion, of course.

[RP08]

I'm by no shake of the imagination a "conspiracy theorist". The way I saw it was, however, very shaky. Why would that word be on the prompter so conveniently.. twice during an expected announcement of quarterly results? Thesaurus.com wasn't up for the closest fitting word to some idealism they had in mind. I don't blame the reporter one bit, but I personally believe someone in the "put words out" room deliberately had the term "isolationist" ready for the value it actually holds, and perhaps someone else wanted it reinforced by quickly re-stating it as so called "fact" in context. I do, in deed, believe that specific word was rammed down our throats with intent. Motive, in media, could be as simple as "seeing it the way we prefer you to see it" (""we don't look bad if you agree with us"")... it doesn't have to boil down to some vast secret conspiracy. This could be as simple as all MSM riding the "what's this nut-job still doing around here" wave. God knows, enough of these idiots will ride whatever wave is being aired, true or not-true, important or not important, interesting or ah... *click*.

[Nathan Hale]

I'm by no shake of the imagination a "conspiracy theorist". The way I saw it was, however, very shaky. Why would that word be on the prompter so conveniently.. twice during an expected announcement of quarterly results? Thesaurus.com wasn't up for the closest fitting word to some idealism they had in mind. I don't blame the reporter one bit, but I personally believe someone in the "put words out" room deliberately had the term "isolationist" ready for the value it actually holds, and perhaps someone else wanted it reinforced by quickly re-stating it as so called "fact" in context. I do, in deed, believe that specific word was rammed down our throats with intent. Motive, in media, could be as simple as "seeing it the way we prefer you to see it" (""we don't look bad if you agree with us"")... it doesn't have to boil down to some vast secret conspiracy. This could be as simple as all MSM riding the "what's this nut-job still doing around here" wave. God knows, enough of these idiots will ride whatever wave is being aired, true or not-true, important or not important, interesting or ah... *click*.

The way you're putting it, the media would be motivated to have Paul gain credibility. Because more credibility means more exposure which means a more interesting election and thus higher ratings. So according to the logic you present, it's counterintuitive for the media to want to drag Paul down.

[Original_Intent]

Um there are emotional connotations with words like "isolationist", "gadfly", and even referring to him as "some congreesman from Texas named Ron Paul" (the way it was said.

If you don't believe they know exactly what buttons they are pushing and are doing it intentionally with the motive of discrediting Ron Paul, that's your choice. An unwise, ill-informed choice imo, but it's yours to make.

[hard@work]

The way you're putting it, the media would be motivated to have Paul gain credibility. Because more credibility means more exposure which means a more interesting election and thus higher ratings. So according to the logic you present, it's counterintuitive for the media to want to drag Paul down.

You assume that the media cares more about it's ratings than the board of directors or the companies that pay for advertising.

[Nash]

My take is that the newscaster was totally clueless and had never heard of Ron Paul until the story broke and the Producer prompting her was basically just giving her copy repeating the crap he overheard from his neocon/neolib friends at lunch one day when they talked about some of the canddiates.

These people are totally ignorant. I worked in a newsroom for 3 years. With a few exceptions they are collectively some of the dumbest people I've ever worked with.

[hard@work]

My take is that the newscaster was totally clueless and had never heard of Ron Paul until the story broke and the Producer prompting her was basically just giving her copy repeating the crap he overheard from his neocon/neolib friends at lunch one day when they talked about some of the canddiates.

These people are totally ignorant. I worked in a newsroom for 3 years. With a few exceptions they are collectively some of the dumbest people I've ever worked with.


Pretty much how I feel about it now. When I posted this I was on adrenaline not logic. Either way it's bad, and yet at the same time blindingly hilarious ...

[EvoPro]

They call Paul an isolationist because many people conflate military isolationism with isolationism in general. Paul IS a military isolationist.

wow. I can not believe anyone would make excuses for the MSM. They made no mistake in word choice. He is not an isolationist. That's all there is to it. They meant to slander.

[Nathan Hale]

You assume that the media cares more about it's ratings than the board of directors or the companies that pay for advertising.

Yes. I'm assuming that the media company values a profit motive more than the personal politics of its ownership. As a business owner, I shut up about politics the moment I enter my business. I've nodded and smiled a thousand times when customers said something political that I disagreed with. Why? Because I'd rather keep their business than insert my opinion and lose it. There are some businessmen who say otherwise, but IMHO they're in the minority, big business and small business alike. So yes, I'm assuming that the company wants to make money before it wants to make a statement. But to the contrary YOU'RE assuming that the company values politics over profit. And for a company, especially a media company, that's a HUGE leap of faith.

[Nathan Hale]

wow. I can not believe anyone would make excuses for the MSM. They made no mistake in word choice. He is not an isolationist. That's all there is to it. They meant to slander.

Of course they did. Because the Bilderbergers from Bohemian Grove told them to collude with the Carlyle Group and slander some guy who has 3% in the polls. Here's your tin foil hat.

::gives EvoPro tin foil hat::

[American]

Of course they did. Because the Bilderbergers from Bohemian Grove told them to collude with the Carlyle Group and slander some guy who has 3% in the polls. Here's your tin foil hat.

::gives EvoPro tin foil hat::

WOW, I see the trolls are out tonight.

[hard@work]

Yes. I'm assuming that the media company values a profit motive more than the personal politics of its ownership. As a business owner, I shut up about politics the moment I enter my business. I've nodded and smiled a thousand times when customers said something political that I disagreed with. Why? Because I'd rather keep their business than insert my opinion and lose it. There are some businessmen who say otherwise, but IMHO they're in the minority, big business and small business alike. So yes, I'm assuming that the company wants to make money before it wants to make a statement. But to the contrary YOU'RE assuming that the company values politics over profit. And for a company, especially a media company, that's a HUGE leap of faith.

But your assumption is wrong. How you make this analogy confounds me. As a business owner I shut up about politics. But my business is not the distribution of political thought. You should read a bit more about how the media works compared to whatever business you run. From the special interests already embedded in their staff (corporate and government) to the power the advertising dollar has over what is placed on the menu of "news". If you seriously believe the network media system is puritan then you're a minority in America let alone this forum.

This is no "tin foil hat" conspiracy (and by the way, that comment was crass). This is no lunatic ranting because of "assumptions" they like to make without research. This is just how that industry works. The advertisers and all the money these companies make is 99.995% corporate in nature. Many of the corporations advertising are members of the very corporate network that owns the media outlet. It's pretty good business to maintain a status quo of punditry, punditry out of touch with the American people and beheld to the advertisment dollar. Punditry also answerable to a producer, who is in turn answerable to a general manager, answerable to an executive officer.

All of it nicely packaged in a formulaic delivery reviewed for metrics and revamped as needed. And if a message needs to be squelched, ignored, or silenced a simple phone call or two and it's done. There are plenty of recorded instances of this. Whether or not this was an example of this or if it was an example of ineptititude is irrelevant. A good citizen is wise to be suspicious of the American media. A foolish one complacent.

[inibo]

These people are shell shocked.

He he he.

Everybody's all like "Wow, why didn't we see this coming?!"

Attention journalistcritters: News Flash! Even you can't think your navels are that interesting. There is an entire nation of people out here. You are missing the story of the century.

[FreedomLover]

I don't think the criticisms about media misrepresentation counts as being a tin-foil-hatter, but I think it's overly simplified under easy titles likes the NWO or just them being 'afraid' of ron paul.

Ron paul is somewhere between 1 and 3% in the national polls, do you think the 'corporate elite' are honestly that afraid of him? News stories may sometimes misrepresent something, and whether it's through simple human error or political opinions by campaign workers of other campaigns disguised as news, it really shouldn't surprise you.

But guess what? Ron Paul isn't the only one who gets sideswipped by the MSM every now and then.

Yeah, I know, surprising. But it's true. I see negative commentaries on people like guiliani and hillary and edwards all the time. But most of the shows on the news arn't meant to be "news" but "news commentary." The "news" is more opinionated and biased than ever.

For instance, you remember the last fox news debate? They treated mitt romney like complete crap the whole time! It was unbelievably harsh. I'm not saying he didn't deserve most of it, but if you think the media is out to get ron paul and ron paul only, you may not have a tin foil hat, but you definetly got tinfoil shavings in your hair.

[hard@work]

Tin foil references aside, those were good points.

[Nathan Hale]

WOW, I see the trolls are out tonight.

How am I trolling? I've already shown that there's no media conspiracy to keep Paul off the air, but he insists on continuing baseless accusations, so I figured I'd make a little fun of it.

[Nathan Hale]

But your assumption is wrong. How you make this analogy confounds me. As a business owner I shut up about politics. But my business is not the distribution of political thought. You should read a bit more about how the media works compared to whatever business you run. From the special interests already embedded in their staff (corporate and government) to the power the advertising dollar has over what is placed on the menu of "news". If you seriously believe the network media system is puritan then you're a minority in America let alone this forum.

I've worked in the media. Advertisers came more about ratings than about the specific actions taken by the media establishments. Only rarely, in the case of high profile inproprieties, do advertisers ride the moral high horse.



This is no "tin foil hat" conspiracy (and by the way, that comment was crass).

Sometimes it needs to be said.



This is no lunatic ranting because of "assumptions" they like to make without research. This is just how that industry works. The advertisers and all the money these companies make is 99.995% corporate in nature. Many of the corporations advertising are members of the very corporate network that owns the media outlet.

I'd contest that many people make these assumptions without research. They see unrelated data points and connect the dots incorrectly to draw a conspiratorial picture. Reminds me of a recent documentary that did the same thing called "An Inconvenient Truth".


It's pretty good business to maintain a status quo of punditry, punditry out of touch with the American people and beheld to the advertisment dollar. Punditry also answerable to a producer, who is in turn answerable to a general manager, answerable to an executive officer.

And the executive officer wants to make MORE MONEY. That means attracting as many eyeballs as possible. That means making things as interesting as possible. Now that Paul is considered more credible, he gets more time because he is interesting. Such is the way of things, "the media man" isn't trying to keep him down.


All of it nicely packaged in a formulaic delivery reviewed for metrics and revamped as needed. And if a message needs to be squelched, ignored, or silenced a simple phone call or two and it's done. There are plenty of recorded instances of this.

Yes, there are many anecdotal instances of this happening, but they're anecdotal, not evidence of widespread corruption.


Whether or not this was an example of this or if it was an example of ineptititude is irrelevant.

Actually it's quite relevant, the difference between intentional smear and poor choice of words.


A good citizen is wise to be suspicious of the American media. A foolish one complacent.

And I count myself in the former category. But suspicion does not imply assumption of guilt, and it certainly doesn't call for publicly crying wolf every time the media does anything remotely curious.

[hard@work]

I disagree completely. But there's no reason to argue.

:)

[angelatc]

As to the topic - my parents and I were discussing Ron Paul. I warned her that she would hear the "Isolation" word, but told her that's not really true.

She said "I wish it were! We should close off the damned borders and start making stuff in this country again!"

Not that I agree with her, but just wanted ya'll to know that there's a segment of the older population who actually find that word appealing.

So relax a little. I did!

[RP08]

How am I trolling? I've already shown that there's no media conspiracy to keep Paul off the air, but he insists on continuing baseless accusations, so I figured I'd make a little fun of it.


Edumacate thyself son. You see, childrens is learning:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22313&highlight=levinson



.

[hard@work]

And after you're done with that lecture make sure you visit this excellent introduction to Ron Paul edumacation wear:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VmlseYJDEK4

Because seriously, logic and truth does not need to be ridiculous to be falsley ridiculed.

[Nathan Hale]

Edumacate thyself son. You see, childrens is learning:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22313&highlight=levinson


Uhh, if there's a point you'd like to make, I'd prefer that you make it, because I don't have to time to watch videos right now.

[hard@work]

Uhh, if there's a point you'd like to make, I'd prefer that you make it, because I don't have to time to watch videos right now.

Soundbites might just be your style then?

:D

[Nathan Hale]

No, nor did my message imply that. Our debate is here, in this thread. If you have a point then make it yourself, in this thread. My investment in this debate is limited specifically to what you say, and as I've already spent tons of time reviewing many sides of these issues I really don't plan to view whatever videos are thrown my way in lieu of an actual argument.

[RP08]

No, nor did my message imply that. Our debate is here, in this thread. If you have a point then make it yourself, in this thread. My investment in this debate is limited specifically to what you say, and as I've already spent tons of time reviewing many sides of these issues I really don't plan to view whatever videos are thrown my way in lieu of an actual argument.

That video is of a Dr. Levinson lecture on the specific subject of NBC's obvious and deliberate blackout of Ron Paul, from a neutral (not endorsing anyone) perspective.

It's worth the time if you have it.

.

[Nathan Hale]

That video is of a Dr. Levinson lecture on the specific subject of NBC's obvious and deliberate blackout of Ron Paul, from a neutral (not endorsing anyone) perspective.

It's worth the time if you have it.

.

There's no such thing as a "neutral" perspective. Perhaps he's not "endorsing" Ron Paul, but that doesn't grant him the gold star of having a "neutral perspective". If he is the one in a million person capable of throwing away his desire and self interest to the point that he can actually see an issue without his ideology or endgame interfering with his analysis, then more power to him, but in all of my years in media, I have yet to ever hear a person speak with this sort of detached clarity.

That said, I have neither time nor the inclination to watch speeches, perhaps in the future you'd like to make the argument here in this thread, and I'd be happy to reply to it. Until then, I fail to see the conspiracy behind the media's profit motive.

[RP08]

There's no such thing as a "neutral" perspective. Perhaps he's not "endorsing" Ron Paul, but that doesn't grant him the gold star of having a "neutral perspective". If he is the one in a million person capable of throwing away his desire and self interest to the point that he can actually see an issue without his ideology or endgame interfering with his analysis, but in all of my years in media, I have yet to ever hear a person speak with this sort of detached clarity.

That said, I really don't have time right now to watch speeches, perhaps in the future you'd like to make the argument here in this thread, and I'd be happy to reply to it. Until then, I fail to see the conspiracy behind the media's profit motive.



Why re-invent the wheel? Practicing debate on a text-forum is fun n' all but...

You're right that all points are made for a perspective. Dr. Levinson states, in his lecture, that he's not endorsing Ron Paul (necessarily), and that the whole reason for his analysis is because of the blatant/obvious media (particularly NBC, according to him) mis-information on Ron Paul makes for an interesting topic of study, being that the other candidates, front-runner or not, aren't experiencing the same kind of nearly laughable treatment.

Since, the argument proposed, the media is right and covers the issues and candidates fairly, without profit, wit, ratings, popularity, or other motives, I'm affraid you might have to go back to the Hillary/Obama table, since that's what we've been told by the MSM is the winning ticket this Presidential season.

"More of the same" FTW!!! Can't wait for our neocon democrats to slap in and spread more "democracy" throughout the world before the next slap-in of the next neocon republican, maybe Jeb Bush. We'll keep stoking the fire and feeding the world the same crap speech lines before announcing being "elected" then doing the bidding of the puppeteers indefinitely. You go people. Good work letting the government do you, instead of represent you.

We bow to our master on Capital Hill. Doubtfulness is unpatriotic and against our troops and antisemitic and whacky and whatever.

Keep believing that, and please avoid reading or seeing anything produced by folks more qualified in their areas than li'l ol' me (I don't have time either. I already know everything I need to know.)



.

[fj45lvr]

Hey.....does anyone seem to see the discrepency in the system if when polled people do not "know" all the candidates to have an opinion of them....but then the media events (most definetly the "debates") focus almost exclusively on the "proclaimed" top tier???

How does a guy become top tier?? I dare say it is not based on "numbers" of supporters because I think the facts would show that Paul has more supporters based on individual contributions to his campaign and obviously from the crowds you see at the various media events.

I harken consideration back to Pat Buchanan running for president (and he was even known by most households).

I think that it would be completely foolish to believe that "face time" is not in fact a concious decision of the media and how can anyone assume that the media (corporations themselves) are NOT in fact steering their "endorsements" to what the owners of the company would like to see OR what they think would SELL.

Consider how much DEFLATION they have if the NBA championship is between the Sacramento kings vs. the Timberwolves IN CONTRAST to a Los Angeles or New York finish (they could care less about "actual" champions but viewerships and ratings i.e. money......is it a big stretch to believe that BIG GOV and BIG MONEY isn't going to be wildly enthusiastic of the guy that is most likely to SHINE the LIGHT ON IT and wants to pull the PLUG???

Why is their a actual transcript of Rockefeller thanking the media for their efforts to enable the Globalist cabal to be where it is today???

[kahless]

Speaking of Buchanan this thing reminds of the same crap that Nora did back when he was running. It was clear then as it is now she does not have an independent thought in her head and is spoon fed with this stuff. Back during the campaign it seemed her idol was Chris Mathews at that time and she seemed to echo his beliefs.

When will people say enough is enough and demand journalistic integrity from major news channels. The news and campaign coverage is pathetic.

[Nathan Hale]

Why re-invent the wheel? Practicing debate on a text-forum is fun n' all but...

Then why have ANY of these debates? Most of them have already been had elsewhere.


You're right that all points are made for a perspective. Dr. Levinson states, in his lecture, that he's not endorsing Ron Paul (necessarily), and that the whole reason for his analysis is because of the blatant/obvious media (particularly NBC, according to him) mis-information on Ron Paul makes for an interesting topic of study, being that the other candidates, front-runner or not, aren't experiencing the same kind of nearly laughable treatment.

Actually, they are. How much coverage do you think Duncan Hunter or Sam Brownback get? Paul gets ten times as many media hits. He gets about as much play as Mike Huckabee, who is actually polling higher than him.


Since, the argument proposed, the media is right and covers the issues and candidates fairly, without profit, wit, ratings, popularity, or other motives, I'm affraid you might have to go back to the Hillary/Obama table, since that's what we've been told by the MSM is the winning ticket this Presidential season.

My argument is that profit is the motive, and as such ratings are the motive. The media plays what attracts the most eyeballs. And, by the way, Clinton is probably going to be our next President, so that's not some goofball assertion.


"More of the same" FTW!!! Can't wait for our neocon democrats to slap in and spread more "democracy" throughout the world before the next slap-in of the next neocon republican, maybe Jeb Bush. We'll keep stoking the fire and feeding the world the same crap speech lines before announcing being "elected" then doing the bidding of the puppeteers indefinitely. You go people. Good work letting the government do you, instead of represent you.

We bow to our master on Capital Hill. Doubtfulness is unpatriotic and against our troops and antisemitic and whacky and whatever.

Keep believing that, and please avoid reading or seeing anything produced by folks more qualified in their areas than li'l ol' me (I don't have time either. I already know everything I need to know.)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, as it doesn't seem to be a reply to what I wrote.

[EvoPro]

I never said that there was a conspiracy to keep him off the air. I just said they try to slander him, which is true. They did. They do it a lot, especially with the "long shot." But they also slander a lot of other candidates too. Some more often than others.

[steph3n]

EvoPro,
"long shot" is not slander or libel. Get real.

[hard@work]

My argument is that profit is the motive, and as such ratings are the motive. The media plays what attracts the most eyeballs. And, by the way, Clinton is probably going to be our next President, so that's not some goofball assertion.


You know, that's just basic common sense. It's not exactly a revolutionary statement and I think we all understand it as it is incredibly simple economics. But I do have to ask if you are so sure of this statement are you also completely confident that this is the only driving force for the media? i.e. "ratings" are the only driving force, and there is no other agenda whatsoever.

[EvoPro]

EvoPro,
"long shot" is not slander or libel. Get real.

you're right, "discredit" would be the better word for that one.

[Nathan Hale]

I never said that there was a conspiracy to keep him off the air. I just said they try to slander him, which is true.

Sure, some folks like Glen Beck slander him, but they're opinion-makers, not journalists. Keep in mind the very important difference.


They did. They do it a lot, especially with the "long shot."

Ohhh, now I get it. Calling him a "long shot" isn't slander. It's true. He's a long shot. He's low in the polls and even with his great donations he's still far behind the leaders. That's why the campaign is shooting so high for Q4, because it would put them in parity with the leaders.


But they also slander a lot of other candidates too. Some more often than others.

I think you're extending too broad a meaning to the term "slander". Slander implies malice and intent. That's simply not there for most journalists. I would say that some FOX News folks have crossed the line during and after debates, but it's not endemic in the system.

[Nathan Hale]

You know, that's just basic common sense. It's not exactly a revolutionary statement and I think we all understand it as it is incredibly simple economics. But I do have to ask if you are so sure of this statement are you also completely confident that this is the only driving force for the media? i.e. "ratings" are the only driving force, and there is no other agenda whatsoever.

I never doubt the possibility of conspiracy, the possibility exists in all walks of life, but I demand some real concrete evidence before I reach that conclusion.

[Nathan Hale]

you're right, "discredit" would be the better word for that one.

Once again you're implying intent and malice. Discredit is just as bad as using the term "slander".

[hard@work]

I never doubt the possibility of conspiracy, the possibility exists in all walks of life, but I demand some real concrete evidence before I reach that conclusion.

So you are saying that you have seen no "real concrete evidence" on this?

[EvoPro]

My argument is that profit is the motive, and as such ratings are the motive. ...Clinton is probably going to be our next President.



you're implying intent and malice. Discredit is just as bad as using the term "slander".

Contradictions running rampant here.

[Nathan Hale]

So you are saying that you have seen no "real concrete evidence" on this?

I've seen no concrete evidence of the media maligning Ron Paul at all. Sure, there are cases when profit motive doesn't take highest billing - presidential debates come to mind as advertisements are purposefully limited during their run. But I see no alterior motive such as the one we are debating here - the wanton destruction of a candidate deemed to dangerous to the status quo.

[Nathan Hale]

Contradictions running rampant here.

Howso? Those two quotes had nothing to do with each other.

[hard@work]

Yeah. Why don't you show me some?

I was only interested on whether or not you would answer with a "yes".

Take care.

[Nathan Hale]

Take care.

But I perceived an undercurrent in your message. Have you seen concrete evidence of this? If so, as I mentioned, I'd love to see it.

[dude58677]

She looked pissed.:D :D