Action: Add bit about Media Censorship to Wikipedia

[RPFever]

Hi folks:

With all this media censorship going on of Ron Paul, someone should add a section on Ron Paul's wikipedia page about the Media Censorship he is facing. (Yes, with all the evidence we have, this is legit - you could even put "alleged" beside the title... like the "alleged racism" section which is an obvious smear)

You could add:

1. Unequal time in debates
2. CNN censorship (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=43097)
People sending in messages like:

Quote:
Word of you deleting this is spreading across the Internet like wildfire:

http://get-sized-up.com/cnn-removed-this.html

You guys had better come clean, fast!
3. Other news organizations calling support from polls "un legit"
4. Media using phone polls but not including Ron Paul's name in polls.

Any other ideas would be good to.... Point is... REFERENCE WELL and write objectively and it will be kept for all to realize what is being done.

[Avalon]

5. Everytime he is mentioned the commentator authoritatively says he has no chance, or is a fringe candidate, or is languishing in the polls. Other "second tier" candidates do not get this treatment when they are mentioned (albeit less often).
6. Unflattering camera angles during the NH debate
7. Angry/awkward still photos for online articles.
8. Smaller photo in MSNBC poll after first debate.
9. Media blackout of him winning online polls, # of youtube subscribers and myspace friends. Few mentions of him topping google and technorati.
10. Fox making their text message poll a central part of their SC debate, and then having several commentators basically telling people how to vote, then alleging illegitimacy or saying the results "don't mean anything" when Ron Paul is in first.

[Avalon]

11. Wolf Blitzer purposely mischaracterizing RP's argument at the SC debates as being "We invited the 9/11 attacks by monitoring the no fly zones in Iraq", then when RP corrects him and brings up Saudi Arabia Blitzer authoritatively states "You only mentioned Iraq in the debate" when in fact RP talked extensively about the Iranian coup and our presence in the Middle East in general. In the same interview Wolf asks him if he blames America. RP says no and as he responds a bold "headline" pops up that says "BLAMES AMERICA FOR 9/11"

[Therion]

THIS ISN'T WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS FOR.

It's supposed to be factual information backed up with published sources, no original research or pushing our opinions.

[Avalon]

I agree that these things should be listed directly in the article, but I don't see why they can't be mentioned in passing with a link or two. I can't find any requirement for only linking published sources, nor any definition of what that is. I see blogs and "unpublished" websites listed currently as sources.

Just something like "Many supporters claim there is purposeful media bias against his candidacy with some even accusing CNN and MSNBC of actively censoring the public." And then we link to an article that is well developed with screenshots and any other supporting evidence we can muster for our claims.