NOT a conspiracy: MSM lack of coverage

[nevildev]

Many people here have shared the view that MSM is limiting Ron Paul coverage because they don't want him in office. Therefore, they are not objectively covering this election and cooperating in a conspiracy.

I argue that they simply have not adapted to the true power of the Internet. Instead they are basing the amount of their coverage by "old school" polling standards. The polls are being conducted the same as in previous elections. The questions generally ask, "if the election were held today, who would you vote for President?" You can't get more general than that.

The other complaint is that Ron Paul's name has been excluded from polls. Could this simply be because other polls peg Ron Paul as "nobody" politically. I interpret these pollsters as being out of touch with the Internet and its new form of grassroots.

November's $4.5 million and Sunday's $6+ million are starting to make the media realize that Ron Paul has more votes than the polls say. Yet, no one knows the true # of votes, not even Ron Paul.

If it's truly as enormous as it seems, the Iowa primary will speak for itself and open the MSM eyes.

What do you think?

[european]

i think you are right

[rollingpig]

have to see how this election plays out

[jake]

reality is its a combination of both, I reckon
they are very ignorant, no doubt

[nist7]

It's somewhere between a full out conspiracy and complete naivete.

To say that the old media has NO agenda and simply do not understand "the internet" would be naive.

To say that the old media is all in on a conspiracy to keep out Ron Paul is also very naive.

As jake said, it's somewhere in between.

[dsentell]

You may be partly right, but the ruling families of America do not want Ron Paul in office and I believe that is the largest factor . . .

[daikonv]

even interviewers from the MSM ask Dr. Paul how he feels about the lacking coverage. it's well known already. the only way to show them up is to do well in the early primary states, then they'll be forced to cover the good doctor.

[Falseflagop]

Your point is has validity because if RON wins the MSM would be 100% dead with no credibilty.

However please do not be naive as these people are holding RP down. They will show a couple of times to try to get some ratings and $$$ for ADs that is it!


If it was a conspiracy don't you think if RUDY or Hillary raised 6 mil in 1 day it would be news 24/7 for 1 week straight ask yourself that, rather we get LIEberman endorsing McCain? Please!

[nbhadja]

If you can't see that the media blatantly ignores Ron Paul you must not have been following him closely, it's so obvious.

[BuddyRey]

Many people here have shared the view that MSM is limiting Ron Paul coverage because they don't want him in office. Therefore, they are not objectively covering this election and cooperating in a conspiracy.

I argue that they simply have not adapted to the true power of the Internet. Instead they are basing the amount of their coverage by "old school" polling standards. The polls are being conducted the same as in previous elections. The questions generally ask, "if the election were held today, who would you vote for President?" You can't get more general than that.

The other complaint is that Ron Paul's name has been excluded from polls. Could this simply be because other polls peg Ron Paul as "nobody" politically. I interpret these pollsters as being out of touch with the Internet and its new form of grassroots.

November's $4.5 million and Sunday's $6+ million are starting to make the media realize that Ron Paul has more votes than the polls say. Yet, no one knows the true # of votes, not even Ron Paul.

If it's truly as enormous as it seems, the Iowa primary will speak for itself and open the MSM eyes.

What do you think?

Your general premise, that the Old Media doesn't understand the net and its full implications with regard to the political process, is a valid one. However, I must remind you that Ron Paul raised 6 MILLION DOLLARS on Sunday!!! If McCain or Obama had done this, it would be front page news on every TV screen and establishment rag in the country. There is MOST DEFINITELY a conspiracy.

[nevildev]

If you can't see that the media blatantly ignores Ron Paul you must not have been following him closely, it's so obvious.

I've been following him VERY closely and came to that conclusion. Perhaps I am naive. This is the first time I have participated in a presidential campaign. However, I like to think that people are generally "good" and I stray away from conspiracy theories until there is overwhelming factual evidence, not simply assumptions.

[nevildev]

Your general premise, that the Old Media doesn't understand the net and its full implications with regard to the political process, is a valid one. However, I must remind you that Ron Paul raised 6 MILLION DOLLARS on Sunday!!! If McCain or Obama had done this, it would be front page news on every TV screen and establishment rag in the country. There is MOST DEFINITELY a conspiracy.

Right, yesterday the media reacted VERY slowly and tried to bury the story. But one day later, Ron Paul is interviewed on 3 major news networks as well as on TV tonight with Glenn Beck. I would hardly say he is being ignored.

[slantedview]

I wouldn't exactly call it a conspiracy, it's just good business.

MSM is corporate, they are driven by profit. Having certain candidates elected will benefit their bottom line more than if Ron were to be elected, so as a corporation, what would you expect from them except bias?

[Fyretrohl]

You know...After todays interview with F&F...I wonder...Could Dr Paul have actually been calling out the MSM with his pulling up of that book quote? Supposedly, the 'president' that gets elected is in the medias pocket or has the media in his pocket, etc, along with the Corpaticians. Makes you wonder if that is why they truly cut out so fast. They had to regroup on how to get him off stage, because he was revealing a truth about THEM.

Or, maybe just another conspiracy to have fun with...

[1913_to_2008]

Of course it's a conspiracy. The families/corporations who own this country. That's right I said own! Do not want him in office.

The country was purchased by a group of bankers in 1913. The media is also owned/controlled by these people. The only reason that they give him any coverage is to make it appear that they're fair and balanced.

I catch them lying about everything. Once you "wake up" you begin to see that everything is a lie. They will give him the least amount of coverage that they feel they can get away with without blowing their cover.

Yes, he will get more and more in the next few weeks but, If they were fair and balanced he would be leading the polls with 90%. The American sheople would even vote for him if they were told the truth. Instead Mitt Romney farts and they give him a week of coverage for it.

[noztnac]

There is a calculated and concerted effort to exclude Ron Paul. It is obvious and flagrant.
I'm not giving the MSM a free pass. They have not been doing their job which is to report the news. They spend 80% of their time "predicting" the news and, usually, predicting it incorrectly. When the weatherman is wrong he at least doesn't influence the weather. When the MSM makes these outrageous political predictions they are influencing the way people vote. It is disgusting and needs to stop.

[Falseflagop]

The word "COnspiracy" is used a label. The label people kooks and crazy when the word is used. However, it true purpose when used by the crooks in the MSM is to cover up the truth.

MSM says: You need to believe that JFK was shot by 1 shooter"

Now if you think other wise you are automatically labelled a NUT a KOOK.

However, when you research it and check out the angle, the type of gun supposedly used ( a bolt action rifle that fired 3 shots in 6 sec and was dead on everytime), you realize the MEDIA theory is the actual conspiracy theory.

People who think things through are Criticial thinkers and that is what the MSM does not want. They want people to be sheep and listen to their every word!

Never be ashamed what your belief is so long as you have researched the matter. As to the MSM go no further than to who owns these companies. I believe 5 companies control 90% of teh media coverage in teh USA. Scary. Like RON says I trust teh internet more than the MSM!

Always think outside the box ALWAYS!

[i2ambler]

Look, huckabee wasnt getting any media coverage either until his meteoric rise in the polls. Dont fool yourself into thinking it is because of the Chuck Norris ad. Its because mass emails by huckabee's campaign staff were sent to Iowa pastors, and pastors all over the USA to talk their congregations into voting for Huckabee. The same way that Bush was pushed into office. The evangelical church is HUGE in the USA, and the sheep will do whatever the church tells them to do based soley on religious beliefs.

Here’s an example of one such email that went out a few months ago when Huckabee was battling with Brownback to be the standard-bearer of the Evangelical right:

Dear XXX and XXX,

Pastors XXX and XXX relayed to me that you are both supporting Sam Brownback for President. It sounds like there is, in fact, regular contact with Senator Brownback and yourselves. I applaud your participation in the selection of the next president of the United States. It is our duty as Christians to take our stewardship of this country extremely serious. And I am sure that you are aware that our entire Walnut Creek leadership staff, to my knowledge, is supporting Mike Huckabee.

On July 20, we drove up to Ames and spoke with pastors XXX and XXX about our position and were well received. However, it sounds like you are the men we need to communicate with about our advocacy. I am interested in your decision to support this candidate. As you know, both candidates are down in the polls. Nation-wide polls show Brownback at 1% and Huckabee at 3% amongst Republican candidates.

About 3 weeks ago, I met the Governor personally. I learned that he was a Southern Baptist pastor for 12 years. The Governor told us that he concluded that people needed to gain positions in the government in order to safeguard our Christian values. People need to make that sacrifice. He served as LT. Governor prior to serving as governor for 10 and a half years.

The second time he ran for Gov. he gained over 48% of the black vote. That is remarkable and it conveys he can really broaden his base. I think he is electable. He is a remarkable communicator. I believe as people listen to him, just like in Arkansas, they will like what he says and like him personally. I have listened to him in private and over the radio. He is the best communicator I have ever heard run for office. President Reagan was a great communicator but he did not as closely represent a Christian perspective as does Huckabee, although Reagan did a very good job.

Huckabee is an evangelical. He has not learned how to speak to evangelicals; i.e. Bush 41 & 43. He is one of us. I know Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002. Frankly, as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about his discernment when compared to the Governor’s. I don’t if this fact is widely known among evangelicals who are supporting Brownback.

The one criticism of Huckabee is that he raised taxes in Arkansas. First of all, is that he had to raise money to meet some Federally imposed funding initiatives. When he took office, Arkansas was 47th ranked state in education. When he left office, they were 23rd rank. The roads were in horrible shape in the aftermath of the Clintons. He raised money for them. This is a constitutionally sanctioned responsibility of government. He cut taxes 86 times in Arkansas. He left with a budget surplus that was significant. He also left office with an 86% approval rating. He can build consensus even in a primarily Democratic state.

Michael Ferris of the Home School Legal Defense Association enthusiastically endorses him as does the former Promise Keeper magazine New Man.

There is much more to say. Like you, we are trying to make a 1st or 2nd place showing in the Iowa Straw Poll to give our candidates a boost and viability. Money and media attention would be gained to the winners. All Huckabee needs is exposure in my opinion. The money will come and will the volunteers. I would ask you to reconsider your support of Senator Brownback; and lead your people in not splitting the Christian vote among the two candidates. I have been impressed with the pastors across the Greater Des Moines area switching their support or giving their support for the Governor. We are in Iowa for ’such a time as this’.
XXX church is trying to gain 1000 votes of people who were not planning on going to the Iowa Straw Poll from our efforts alone. Would you join us in accomplishing this goal?

Your brother and friend,

XXX

taken from : http://patterico.com/2007/12/14/more-and-more-uncomfortable-with-the-campaign-of-mike-huckabee-and-the-influence-of-evangelical-christians-in-iowa/

[pyrazole2]

my gf did a couple of research papers about a month ago for her Master's in Communications. One dealt with the MSM's relation to the internet and the other with overseas support for RP.

Her conclusions (and she was a member of the MSM at one time for 4-5 years) were that they are generally threatened by the internet and the availability of news there. One can look already at the drop in subscriptions of major and minor newspapers to see this. They've tried online subscriptions, etc...but generally, they're slowly sliding into oblivion. If they report on RP, it's like saying that their traditional means of obtaining facts, figures and stories is broken...they would lose what small market share they still have. I believe that the MSM is broken, and they'll find out soon enough! They will either adapt to the sharing of information in some way, or people will see that traditional means of writing news are not accurate any more.

We all know the polling is broken, but the MSM will continue to use what they know without looking much further.

[BillyDkid]

It doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" in order to be a conscious choice to marginalize Ron Paul unfairly. Just like there is no "conspiracy" to run the world by a few powerful elites - there doesn't have to be a conspiracy. There is a tacit, unspoken understanding. The Tea Party, for example, by any objective standard should be the biggest political story in the country and it clearly was not covered that way by newspapers and by the broadcast television.

[Kombaiyashii]

Many people here have shared the view that MSM is limiting Ron Paul coverage because they don't want him in office. Therefore, they are not objectively covering this election and cooperating in a conspiracy.

I argue that they simply have not adapted to the true power of the Internet. Instead they are basing the amount of their coverage by "old school" polling standards. The polls are being conducted the same as in previous elections. The questions generally ask, "if the election were held today, who would you vote for President?" You can't get more general than that.

The other complaint is that Ron Paul's name has been excluded from polls. Could this simply be because other polls peg Ron Paul as "nobody" politically. I interpret these pollsters as being out of touch with the Internet and its new form of grassroots.

November's $4.5 million and Sunday's $6+ million are starting to make the media realize that Ron Paul has more votes than the polls say. Yet, no one knows the true # of votes, not even Ron Paul.

If it's truly as enormous as it seems, the Iowa primary will speak for itself and open the MSM eyes.

What do you think?

I think your totally wrong. I think the problem is that people refer to The Mainstream media as one entity when really there are hundreds of different factions, some more controlled than others. Some are supportive and able to get a few positive words out and some know that if they have him on, their ratings will explode.

However, it's very naive to believe that the people that work in the mainstream media are so out of touch, especially when they get hundreds of emails every time they mention his name. They would have at least checked his record and if it was fair, as soon as they would have checked his record, they would be broadcasting his amazing profile in balance with the other candidates. So what if a balanced look at the facts eclipses all the other candidates, that is because Ron Paul eclipses them hands down.

But as we have it, we have had to fight for him to stay in the debates, we have limited the mainstream media to focus solely on telephone polls and many of which Ron Pauls name hasn't been in. WHY IS THIS?

We have had to raise record amounts, we have had to double the other candidates and there's not so much as a whisper as the attention it would bring the other candidates, we have even had to launch a huge Blimp and yet, a few grudgingly made an article about it.

Think about Ron Pauls fund raising and then think about his grassroots support who are doing things which would probably cost any other candidate tens of millions.

I supported Ron Paul from before the beginning, I was one of those asking for him to run because I knew that we would finally show enough people that the mainstream media acts against the wishes of the American people time and time again. Obviously Ron Paul doesn't want to bring this up as it is too loaded but it is so painfully obvious the mainstream coverup that it is some real cognitive dissonance to apologise for them.

Far beyond incompetence.

[saahmed]

I agree to an extent. At some times the way they speak of Ron Paul seems deliberate in putting people off on him. Sometimes they deliberately attempt to undermine his candidacy, for instance, after one of the debates when Frank Luntz asked how many people thought Ron Paul won the debate. Why would he single out Paul? He had a purpose. So, I think his lack of coverage is not a conspiracy, but the way he is sometimes represented may be.

[James R]

Many people here have shared the view that MSM is limiting Ron Paul coverage because they don't want him in office. Therefore, they are not objectively covering this election and cooperating in a conspiracy.

I argue that they simply have not adapted to the true power of the Internet. Instead they are basing the amount of their coverage by "old school" polling standards. The polls are being conducted the same as in previous elections. The questions generally ask, "if the election were held today, who would you vote for President?" You can't get more general than that.

The other complaint is that Ron Paul's name has been excluded from polls. Could this simply be because other polls peg Ron Paul as "nobody" politically. I interpret these pollsters as being out of touch with the Internet and its new form of grassroots.

November's $4.5 million and Sunday's $6+ million are starting to make the media realize that Ron Paul has more votes than the polls say. Yet, no one knows the true # of votes, not even Ron Paul.

If it's truly as enormous as it seems, the Iowa primary will speak for itself and open the MSM eyes.

What do you think?

I agree. The MSM is just plain slow to catch on. But if you ask me Ron Paul seems to be getting not only fair coverage after Dec 16th, but a whole lot of coverage.

EDIT: I should re-phrase. I *generally* think its just a media failure, but I also think in many cases its on purpose. The news outlets all have slightly different agendas they push. So I'll say 60% is a failure for MSM to wake up to the facts, and 40% an intentional effort to minimize him.

[Oliver]

I argue that they simply have not adapted to the true power of the Internet.

+1

[BarryDonegan]

no. there is plenty of physical evidence of them directly undermining, underreporting his success.

they will not turn around. we have to out do them.

but don't worry, even my old parents don't watch teh news anymore

the media has interests, like any other group with first ammendment rights ever since the 14th ammendment was applied to corporations. they will support their favorite candidates.

its not just dr paul that they do hit pieces on, alan keyes? bet he wishes he could get more love from the media, he got into like 2 debates... and is a serious candidate, and compared to previous years got in plenty early enough.

fred thompson was also a relatively poorly known politician before the media artificially inflated him prior to his run... if that wasn't manufactured by a PR company, the whole is he running is he not thing, then what was?

[Kombaiyashii]

I agree. The MSM is just plain slow to catch on. But if you ask me Ron Paul seems to be getting not only fair coverage after Dec 16th, but a whole lot of coverage.

LOL, good one:D

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

NBC is owned by General Electric. GE is a top defense contractor. Connect the dots. Similar story with the other majors.

[Carole]

I respectfully disagree.

All the media is owned by about six major Humongous conglomerate corporations which have much to lose with a Ron Paul presidency, let alone candidacy.

Please, it is naive to think the MSM has ANY interest in promoting anything other than Huge government and all the encumbrances that it brings to Americans.

The globalists now speak of taxing our water. There is talk of taxing fructose. Do you know how many products on your grocery shelves contain fructose?????????????

We are being outsourced and taxed into submission and into the poorhouse. The middle class is nearly gone.

I do not wish to live in a world whose population is reduced by 80% and contains the few elite rich and the rest poor serfs.

Please use your brain and put the pieces of this spider web of suppression together for yourself.

[Carole]

Yesterday's coverage was a drop in the bucket compared to the Nov. 6th coverage. He is being blacked out.

I personally wonder if the timeing of those other endorsements for other candidates was a bit too perfect. Gave the MSM something dumb to talk about all day and today.

I also question if the real reason McCain and Thompson are still in the race at the "urging" of higher ups in order to dilute Paul's influence and votes.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

Yesterday's coverage was a drop in the bucket compared to the Nov. 6th coverage. He is being blacked out.

I personally wonder if the timeing of those other endorsements for other candidates was a bit too perfect. Gave the MSM something dumb to talk about all day and today.

I also question if the real reason McCain and Thompson are still in the race at the "urging" of higher ups in order to dilute Paul's influence and votes.

He's not being blacked out, although he is being given much less face time and much less positive reporting. If he was truly being blacked out it would be too obvious.

[RP=RonPaul=RedPill]

He's not being blacked out, although he is being given much less face time and much less positive reporting. If he was truly being blacked out it would be too obvious.

Isn't it obvious? It can't be a complete blackout cause they'd lose credibility. Since "he is being given MUCH LESS face time and MUCH LESS positive reporting" is some reporting, it's nothing compared to what they give to other candidates.

Ron Paul doesn't have to pay for his grassroots. Then again, the other candidates don't have to pay for their facetime on the traditional media.

[Anti Federalist]

i2ambler wrote:


Look, huckabee wasnt getting any media coverage either until his meteoric rise in the polls. Dont fool yourself into thinking it is because of the Chuck Norris ad. Its because mass emails by huckabee's campaign staff were sent to Iowa pastors, and pastors all over the USA to talk their congregations into voting for Huckabee. The same way that Bush was pushed into office. The evangelical church is HUGE in the USA, and the sheep will do whatever the church tells them to do based soley on religious beliefs.

Every pastor that did that is in violation of IRS code 501 - 3 (c).

[PINN4CL3]

To the MSM, the polls are the be all end all of a candidate's legitimacy. They have become a way to create talking points with as little personal research and investigation as possible - a time saving effort if you will, in order to make nightly deadlines while still maintaining a show's interest level.

I have seen beat reporters, even on Fox News, who are covering the campaign on the ground from the early states, that say Ron Paul is way further ahead in support than the polls appear to show. However, consider this - if a network chooses to run a story discrediting polls, then don't they discredit themselves every time they cite one? Therefore, the Networks can't do that story. Ron Paul remains a mystery, and other methods have to be used to explain his success.

It will be like this all the way up until the voting begins, and Ron actually wins an early state like NH, or SC. Once he strings together a couple solid victories, he'll catch on like wildfire, and the media will just start the old "wow where did he come from" stories like they never had a clue.

[itsnobody]

I agree 100% when a candidate breaks a single day fundraising record without his campaign being involved that's something unheard of, yet the media is blatantly IGNORING this....

Also, Ron Paul polls higher than Fred Thompson in NH and still get's less coverage....

First they said it was fundraising, then they said polls, now we have both and still not much coverage

[BarryDonegan]

ron paul doesn't challenge the media bias as wrong because he believes that media should have the right to say whatever it wants. i think though, most of the media benefits from government largesse and that shrinking the size of government would also cause there to be less media monopoly, allowing poor quality media that directly conflicts what people see in youtube videos from their daily life to die off in favor of more accurate cutting-edge reporting consistent with the new technology available with all the video phones, internet streaming video and live blogging.

[Liberty]

I've been following him VERY closely and came to that conclusion. Perhaps I am naive. This is the first time I have participated in a presidential campaign. However, I like to think that people are generally "good" and I stray away from conspiracy theories until there is overwhelming factual evidence, not simply assumptions.

Read prior posts on this forum. There are plenty of examples of proof.

[MN Patriot]

I've been following him VERY closely and came to that conclusion. Perhaps I am naive. This is the first time I have participated in a presidential campaign. However, I like to think that people are generally "good" and I stray away from conspiracy theories until there is overwhelming factual evidence, not simply assumptions.

I've been reading and investigating these conspiracy theories for about 10 years now. Some of them are ludicrous, involving aliens, biblical prophesies, etc.

But some make sense, as an explanation for many of the things that happen, and how certain institutions like the Federal Reserve and United Nations were created.

Wikipedia has a great article about the New World Order, this should open anyone's eyes. It still doesn't hurt to be skeptical. Many times events can be explained because of stupidity, incompetence, ignorance. But the Council on Foreign Relations is pretty open about their goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy)

[skeet]

Yes, it is a little of both. It is obvious that they are trying to ignore him. You break the all time one day record - hmm low poll numbers would make the story even more reportable. If Hillary had done this - would it have been as newsworthy? They should expect something like this from their darlings.
We have a list, we will remember.

[Maltheus]

It is a conspiracy and here's why. Newsreaders are looking for stories all the time about how politics are changing with the times. It doesn't matter where he is in the polls because his campaign is still very story worthy. The fact alone that he dominates the internet in an age where the internet dominates everything, is a big freaking story. The fact that the other candidates are having trouble raising money and Paul is getting it hand over fist without even trying is a ... big story (especially giving his standing in the polls). The fact that Paul supporters promote every show that Paul will appear on, is a guaranteed grassroots-viral-marketing ratings draw. So are we suppose to believe that the MSM aren't into big stories and pulling in more viewers in an age of declining viewership? Of course not.

They are scared to death of him. Make no mistake, the MSM represents the establishment status quo in this country. And if we are to believe the words of former CIA director William Colby (boating accident in the middle of the night), then the "Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." Plus, if you're in the media, and you piss off the wrong people, you lose easy access to the decision makers. There's a reason they're called the fourth estate.

Luckily the internet will change things in a way the printing press couldn't approach. We're in for some interesting times. As more people start to wake up, the MSM will become all but irrelevant.

[jaybone]

MSM is bought and paid for, they are and never will be any friend of ours.

[dude58677]

How do you explain Ron Paul not being given enough questions during debates esp after Ron Paul raised more then McCain after the 3rd quarter?

[Rintrah]

The CIA started infiltrating the Media in the 50's. This is documented. It is the only way to control a population without resorting to violence and terror. I believe over the decades they have mastered their techniques and have nearly total control over the news we receive. I don't see how any Ron Paul supporter could believe this is not by design. It frighteningly obvious to me. Thank god for the internet. It changes everything.

[Kombaiyashii]

The CIA started infiltrating the Media in the 50's. This is documented. It is the only way to control a population without resorting to violence and terror. I believe over the decades they have mastered their techniques and have nearly total control over the news we receive. I don't see how any Ron Paul supporter could believe this is not by design. It frighteningly obvious to me. Thank god for the internet. It changes everything.

Yeah lol, the Internet is closer to the voice of the people...If the mainstream media was fair, the stories would reflect the internet a lot closer.