PDA

View Full Version : CNBC Poll - John Harwood read your mails.




Brian4Liberty
10-15-2007, 02:42 PM
John Harwood at CNBC came out against removing the CNBC post-debate poll. He posted an "open" letter to Ron Paul supporters (well-thought out, but giving Ron a "zero-chance"). He read the replies to him, and he has responded again...

Well written again...he seems to be unbiased. No way to tell for sure. And given his position, he would never be free to admit to the bias of any of his colleagues or management...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21305725

BLS
10-15-2007, 02:45 PM
that ship has sailed.

Brian4Liberty
10-15-2007, 03:40 PM
that ship has sailed.

yeah, the poll is long over...

I should have pointed out that this is a second letter to Ron Paul supporters from Harwood, as of today, Monday...I guess this would be the third letter, if you count the first, rude letter from the editor at CNBC about taking down the poll...

robatsu
10-15-2007, 03:49 PM
I think Harwood is trolling for hits/activities, finds he gets a lot of mileage out of Ron Paul controversies.

saku39
10-15-2007, 04:07 PM
This is the same guy that when he was doing a weblog from the debate called Ron a "gadfly." Right. A $5 million gadfly.

He's biased. He's just playing to the crowd now.

He's just another guy that will be proven wrong.

terlinguatx
10-15-2007, 04:43 PM
What galls me is that he thinks he's being fair. He says the editors pick the stories based on the candidates poll numbers and fund raising. However, its the other way around. Editors pick the candidates they want covered and this determines how they poll.

Nathan Hale
10-15-2007, 08:27 PM
This is why the Ron Paul crowd gets no respect from the media. Yes, the media "picks" the candidates, but not in the way we think they do. Early on, before most candidates even announce, the media trolls for who MIGHT run, and latches on to the potential candidates (and early entries) with the greatest celebrity - i.e. the people who would draw the highest ratings. These candidates get promoted. After that early selection by the "media" (the "media" isn't a singular malevolent entity) the system is left to itself. If the previously pushed celebrity candidates take off, then they continue to get covered. If their campaigns falter or if they are horrendously dull, they get less coverage (McCain anyone?). If a candidate shows promise or growing popularity, he gets some coverage (Richardson, Paul, Huckabee), and if the coverage pays off he gets more.

The media isn't anointing candidates for any particular reason, they're just trying to make a buck - as Harwood pointed out in his letter.

If we continue to view the media in an "us vs them" light, we'll never get anywhere. There's a game to play when you're pitching to the media, just like there's a game to play when you're running for political office in general. You can either play it, and stand a chance of winning, or stand off against it, and watch victory sail off into the sunset.

Just as the neocons dismiss islamists as mindless evildoers who need to be eliminated, it seems that RP supporters view the media in that same dismissive light, and we do so to our detriment.

It's good to be right, but it's better to be effective.