C-Span Washington Journal

[NocturnalC]

I've been addicted to Washington Journal lately. Anyways, this morning C-Span had a guess representative of John Edwards on. This guy made commentary that turned tin into gold. Now I'm not saying all of John Edwards views and ideas are bad, but this representative backed him up really well. He had detailed answers and perspective that brought life to what Edwards has to offer.

So why when somebody comes on a show for Ron Paul, they just seem to have no idea how to put Ron a league above the status quo guys? They've seemed half-assed and counter-productive in how they portray Ron and his ideas. I saw some dude from the Houston Chronicle the other day that had almost no idea about Paul and gave very fluff-like answers. It seemed that the callers had way more to offer in information than he did. Aggravating........

[Mark Rushmore]

media != friend

unless the people appearing are chosen by the campaigns, although I'd be tempted to give the same equation :(

[NocturnalC]

media != friend

unless the people appearing are chosen by the campaigns, although I'd be tempted to give the same equation :(

True on the media pundits. But if somebody is going to go on a show to answer for Paul, (s)he needs to have some clue and show a little more enthusiasm for the man's message.

And the dude from the Houston Chronicle speaking for Ron looked like a total slob.

[Question_Authority]

Well, Washington Journal should not have invited a reporter on to speak about Ron Paul's policies. He was often inaccurate. So it is pretty telling that they would have someone on who is ambivalent, leaning toward negative, about RP to discuss his campaign, yet have someone on Edward's Team on to discuss his campaign. I always thought Washington Journal was less bias, but now I wonder.

[Question_Authority]

I am going to email Washington Journal to ask why this discrepancy in treatment.

[NocturnalC]

Well, Washington Journal should not have invited a reporter on to speak about Ron Paul's policies. He was often inaccurate. So it is pretty telling that they would have someone on who is ambivalent, leaning toward negative, about RP to discuss his campaign, yet have someone on Edward's Team on to discuss his campaign. I always thought Washington Journal was less bias, but now I wonder.

Glad I'm not the only one noticing this........

[Henry]

Why not get Judge Napolitano . I can get a hold of the Judge to appear if we can show him that there is enough support from this forum and Daily Paul.

[NocturnalC]

Here is the show with that dude for Ron Paul on the journal:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2viTKjwi7dU

Infuriating........


PS: This dude's eyes were rolling all over the place when he didn't have a decent answer to say.

[Question_Authority]

My email to C-SPAN:

Apparently you are in the midst of a series of shows wherein candidates' spokespersons are speaking on behalf of their candidates and answering callers' questions.

I wonder why Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John Edwards have their own representatives speaking for them, while Ron Paul only had a Houston Chronicle reporter speaking about his campaign?

Mr. Roth, the reporter, was often inaccurate and/or negative about Ron Paul's positions, frequently injecting his own (negative) belief about what public opinion would be. He also expressed his own specific negative reactions to Ron Paul's positions.

Is that fair?

[NocturnalC]

Very good email. I hope they respond to you.