Deliberate Exclusion of Ron Paul - Relentless Email Bomb!

[fireworks_god]

This has already been posted but we need a coordinated effort. We've had success taking on the MSM before when they either lie or omit stuff regarding Ron Paul, and this has to stop.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html

The excuse that they only have enough space to cover candidates that are doing so well won't fly because Ron Paul is beating both Giuliani and Fred Thompson. What they are doing is effectively making it look like Ron Paul is NOT a candidate. :mad:

This is what I sent to publisher@nytimes.com



http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html

I can't help but notice your intentional omission of Ron Paul on the Republican side for the results of the primaries thus far. Ron Paul beat both Giuliani and Fred Thompson in MI last night, beat Giuliani in Iowa, and beat Fred Thompson in NH. When you total up the votes from all primaries, Ron Paul is fourth, ahead of Giuliani and Fred Thompson.

Why then, the obvious, intentional omission of Ron Paul in your reporting? Is there any substansive basis for this? Any chance I could get an honest report back on this? I'm noticing a distinct lack of ethics being displayed in the New York Times. This certainly isn't honest reporting of the facts. Considering that your role as journalists directly influences Presidental elections, I would be one to think that your organization should be charged with sedition.

I'm going to be contacting them every single day until they fix this. This is intolerable, and we need to take action. We also need to find other MSM outlets that are doing this exact same thing. The fact that Ron Paul is not being included even though he is beating TWO candidates they do list by a good margin is senseless and deliberate.

[tsetsefly]

bump

[Cleaner44]

Vote count after IA, WY, NH and MI:
Romney - 441,602 - 37%
McCain - 359,882 - 30%
Huckabee - 206,575 - 17%
Paul - 84,082 - 7%
Thompson - 50,847 - 4%
Giuliani - 48,857 - 4%

[Macon, GA]

Hmmm... I emailed them a letter expressing my concern of the omission of Dr. Paul's name. Now, I am unable to get on that site, unless I click on the above link in the first post. It says that the server has been told not to give me access.....

[UtahApocalypse]

Screw that!! Action !!:

Web Editor: webeditor@nytimes.com
Martin Nisenholtz, the Sr. V.P. of Digital Operations digitalsvp@nytimes.com

# LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to letters@nytimes.com.

# OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call (212) 556-1831 or send article to oped@nytimes.com. To write to the editorial page editor, send to editorial@nytimes.com.

# NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail nytnews@nytimes.com or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.

The Editors
executive-editor@nytimes.com
managing-editor@nytimes.com

The Newsroom
news-tips@nytimes.com; thearts@nytimes.com; bizday@nytimes.com; foreign@nytimes.com; metro@nytimes.com; national@nytimes.com; sports@nytimes.com; washington@nytimes.com

[jj111]

webeditor@nytimes.com; letters@nytimes.com; digitalsvp@nytimes.com; oped@nytimes.com; editorial@nytimes.com; executive-editor@nytimes.com; managing-editor@nytimes.com; news-tips@nytimes.com; thearts@nytimes.com; bizday@nytimes.com; foreign@nytimes.com; metro@nytimes.com; national@nytimes.com; sports@nytimes.com; washington@nytimes.com

[fuzzybekool]

Jeeez. Here we go again with this bullshit. They are going to keep doing this crap. They will tolerate all our emails and phone calls so long as the American people are kept from the truth.

I really wish we had enough dedicated people to start organizing mass protest marches in front of these decietful news outlets.

What the news outlets are doing is no better than what the civil rights activists had to put up with in the 60's.

The 1st amendment protects the MSM and lets them print lies and distort the truth, but the 1st amendment also lets us PROTEST in person, not by emails and phonecalls. We need to SHAME them. Am I wrong here ?

Wishfull thinking I guess. Right ?

Bump.

[jake]

Call to action! This is just unbelievable. NY Times is a disgrace.

[fireworks_god]

Bump.

[UtahApocalypse]

Just called and left a message.

[JenaS62]

Wow. How blatant can they be? I have a pain in my stomach now.

[kmj.ronpaul]

angry emails sent!

[fireworks_god]

Blump before bed!

[TNTCAN]

Left Message

Hello I have some breaking news for you, you have a guy running for Pres. maybe you should look into it. He is RON PAUL. Have a good day.

[all J's in IL for RP]

We've beat Giuliani and Thompson twice in 3 elections! Geez.

[gb13]

bump

[ValidusCustodiae]

Oh, I am livid. I kept my composure, but I let them know on the message that I was very angry. This is obviously a deliberate exclusion. I hammered them politely. I told them I respected their right to print anything they wanted, but for them to exclude a candidate based on idealogical differences was a disservice to the American people. I pointed out that with Ron Paul having 2 delegates already, and Rudy having none, and Ron having beaten Rudy so far in two different states left no justification for having Rudy on the chart, but not Ron Paul.

I am SO SICK OF THIS B.S.!

Seriously, I'm glad we're catching the media in the act on all this, because once the election dust settles they're going to have a lot of explaining to do and we have to hold their feet to the fire!

[firebirdnation]

I just sent an e-mail here: PUBLIC EDITOR To reach Clark Hoyt, who represents the readers, e-mail public@nytimes.com or call (212) 556-7652

I couldn't seem to get ahold of anyone when I called.

[iloveronpaul]

bump

[firebirdnation]

Here is another related topic which could use some support: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=91583

Lets fight the blackout!

[firebirdnation]

Bump

[firebirdnation]

canned response:

Thank you for contacting the Public Editor. An associate or I read everymessage. Because of the volume of e-mail, we cannot respond personally toevery message, but we forward many messages to appropriate newsroomstaffers and follow up to be sure concerns raised in those messages aretreated with serious consideration. If a further reply is warranted, youwill be hearing from us shortly. Some messages to the Public Editor may be published in his column oronline. Please let us know if you do not want your message published. Requests for corrections should be submitted to nytnews@nytimes.com. If youare dissatisfied with the response, please let us know. When referring to a specific article, please include its date, section andheadline.

[freedom-maniac]

Bump for freedom!

[dawnbt]

bump

[hillertexas]

bump

[Molly1]

wow Ron Paul did 7 percent in three primaries with 84,000 votes.

YOU ROCK MICHIGAN!!!!

Good work considering there is total media blackout and this is now a word of mouth campaign. :)

[acptulsa]

Wall Street Journal did the same thing. I emailed NYT and asked if they were trying to sink to Mr. Murdoch's level (the fat foreigner owns the Post). I emailed the WSJ (another Murdoch property) and suggested that they are embarassing themselves by naming someone (Thompson) who didn't do as well as He Who Must Not Be Named. I recommended that they never name any candidate in the future who doesn't manage to beat He Who Must Not Be Named for the benefit of their own credibility.

[TonySutton]

I honestly wonder if we could file a class action lawsuit against the media for this. Any good lawyers out there?

[gb13]

bump

[fireworks_god]

Thank you for contacting NYTimes.com.

We appreciate your feedback and have passed it along to the appropriate department, who will look into resolving this issue.

In the future, to send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail nytnews@nytimes.com, or leave a message at 1889-NYT-NEWS.

We hope this helps. Please let us know if you have further questions or concerns.


Regards,


Robert Peterson
NYTimes.com
Customer Service
www.nytimes./help

Come on, let's keep hitting them! The only reason they get away with this is because no one ever calls them on it. We need to show them that they are held to a higher standard than they have sunk to! The mainstream media only gets away with this because people have let them in the past!

This exclusion was deliberate and calculated. There is no formula that excuses this beyond the exclude Ron Paul forum. Fortunately for us, Ron Paul still exists, and we'll prove it. :D

[Thanehand]

Emailed.

I also added this to Digg:

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/NYTimes_Manipulates_Delegate_Vote_Count_Excludes_R on_Paul

[hillertexas]

Emailed.

I also added this to Digg:

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/NYTimes_Manipulates_Delegate_Vote_Count_Excludes_R on_Paul

dugg

[thechitowncubs]

I got my email forwarded to the right department...

right.

[Thom1776]

Three Percent Rudy

[Am3RiCaN_microcosm]

My message that I just sent:


Allow me to procede directly to the point. The flagrant blanket-omission of Ron Paul's presidential campaign from the NYT is as transparent as it is shameful. Do not expect the 'fringe candiate' explaination to appease the masses this time - such arguments are a waste of time and insulting by nature. Ron Paul has the fourth most votes of any GOP candidate thus far, and is comfortably ahead of both Rudy and Fred. I am curious what sort of Orwellian double-speak you will contrive to excuse yourselves from your own journalistic responsibility THIS time. I expect such behavior from FOX News, but certainly not a reputable organization like the NYT. Did Rupert Murdoch recently come on board?


- A Concerned Reader

[fireworks_god]

http://graphics.boston.com/globe/acrobat/today.jpeg

comments@globe.com

letter@globe.com

617-929-2000


Here's the ACTUAL results:



Romney 337,847 39% 23
McCain 257,521 30% 6
Huckabee 139,699 16% 1
Paul 54,434 6% 0
Thompson 32,135 4% 0
Giuliani 24,706 3% 0
Uncommitted 17,971 2%
Hunter 2,823 0% 0
100% of precincts reporting

http://graphics.boston.com/globe/acrobat/today.jpeg

That's the link for the image of their completely inaccurate information. I can't send them something right now but will as soon as I can. Everyone hit these people too! Let them know we are aware of their lack of journalistic integrity.

[Molly1]

[IMG]That's the link for the image of their completely inaccurate information. I can't send them something right now but will as soon as I can. Everyone hit these people too! Let them know we are aware of their lack of journalistic integrity. *SNIP

Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times.:rolleyes:

[JahWarrior]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=91766

[Crickett]

Wall Street Journal did the same thing. I emailed NYT and asked if they were trying to sink to Mr. Murdoch's level (the fat foreigner owns the Post). I emailed the WSJ (another Murdoch property) and suggested that they are embarassing themselves by naming someone (Thompson) who didn't do as well as He Who Must Not Be Named. I recommended that they never name any candidate in the future who doesn't manage to beat He Who Must Not Be Named for the benefit of their own credibility.

I was so freaked when I saw this ad this morning. HOW could they have congratulated the winner of 4th place, and it not be RP!? I guess they print a retraction on page 86 in the fold.

[fireworks_god]

Blump.

[musicmax]

This is what I sent to publisher@nytimes.com

Who CARES about EMAILS? GET OUT OF YOUR MOTHER's BASEMENT AND MAKE A PHONE CALL :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Opulen]

This means war!!

[fireworks_god]

Bump. They still haven't fixed this. I've sent another email. :D

Who cares about emails? We're talking about something that is happening on the net, and it'll be hard for them to conduct their business when they get millions of emails from us - phone calls are highly effective too! (I'll call them tomorrow if this is not fixed)



http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html


I couldn't help but notice that I have not received a response back from my email yesterday regarding this. Your Election Guide linked above is blatantly censoring the results of Republican Ron Paul. I'm a bit confused as to your metric for deciding to exclude the Republican candidate that has received twice as many votes as two candidates that you have listed. I refer you to some accurate information:



Vote count after IA, WY, NH and MI:
Romney - 441,602 - 37%
McCain - 359,882 - 30%
Huckabee - 206,575 - 17%
Paul - 84,082 - 7%
Thompson - 50,847 - 4%
Giuliani - 48,857 - 4%



Resolve this immediately. Your attempt to unduly sway a Presidental election through deliberate omission is lacking of any integrity. There is no justifiable reason to exclude someone who has received twice as many votes of two candidates that you have listed. This is not tolerable, and the grass-roots supporters of Ron Paul will begin to look for legal avenues through which to ensure that this crime does not go unpunished.

[fireworks_god]

1-888-NYT-NEWS.

Waiting to leave a message right now.

[fireworks_god]

That was hilarious! :D

Everyone call and cite the actual results and demand they fix this.

[fuzzybekool]

I honestly wonder if we could file a class action lawsuit against the media for this. Any good lawyers out there?

I am way ahead of you. I been searching the internet here at work every opportunity I get. So far no luck at finding lawsuits filed in the past. :(

It seems the press is protected by the 1st amendment to print or say what they want short of defamation of character.

I am not a lawyer myself, but it would seem to reason that a well established pattern of suppression is going on against Dr. Paul, and we have the proof as I am sure many of you have saved the screenshots in the past. The big 5 media corporations are now more of a profit entertainment entity and not really pure news anymore and they control 90% of the news / information outlets.

I would argue that some sort of an anti-trust suit could be filed against the MSM or one of the big 5 media corporations just as Micorsoft was successfully sued a few years back.

Sorry, if a lawyer sees this and thinks I am way off and whacks me with a post. Maybe I should go to law school, lol. Just my opinion.

[Runnerguy]

This is just sick. I'd expect this from faux but not the NYT. Needless to say my subscription with them will be happily canceled today.

[fuzzybekool]

message left - 1-888-NYT-NEWS

[bolidew]

This is unacceptable. I am going to unsubscribe NYT if they don't fix it soon.

[oldjersey]

Call 1-888-NYT-NEWS
press 0
you can then say the name of any NYTIMES reporter and will be transfered to them.
So browse the politics section and start calling.

[fireworks_god]

Thank you for contacting NYTimes.com

Currently on the results page, the candidates are ordered by the
number of delegates received by each under the Times' delegate
allocation standards.

For the candidates who have not received any delegates yet, which
currently includes Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Fred
Thompson, we have been using the candidates' ranking in national
polls as the factor in deciding who to include, since the page is
meant to be both a guide to both the completed contests and the
upcoming races.

The most recent Times/CBS News poll had Giuliani at 10%, Thompson at
8% and Paul at 5%. Other polls show similar trends -- see:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

If Ron Paul pulls ahead of Thompson or Giuliani in the delegate
count, he'll be included on the page in place of them.

It's also worth pointing out that Paul and the other candidates in the lower tiers are all included in the individual state.

Regards,

Robert Peterson
NYTimes.com
Customer Service
www.nytimes./help


Now, why would they sort the candidates who have not received any delegates by standing in national polls, and not actual votes cast? :eek:

This is still not acceptable. Let's tell them!

[bolidew]

Continue to bomb.

[ValidusCustodiae]

Tell them just because they set their standards exactly where it will exclude Ron Paul doesn't mean their standards are legitimate.

[fireworks_god]

The American people themselves have decided that they are far more interested in voting for Ron Paul than Fred Thompson and Giuliani. Why use polls when you can use votes? It is senseless. I'll be contacting this dude tomorrow. :D

[fireworks_god]

First off, I appreciate the response back. I've reviewed the Election Guide for 2008 again, and the thought occurs to me that it really does not make sense to sort the percentage of vote page by delegates as well. Why not sort the percentage of vote column, by the percentage of vote, and then sort the delegate count, by the count of delegates?

With all due respect, it is only a reasonable perspective that a graph that is entitled Primary Season Election Results, dedicated to the percent of votes cast, would include a candidate that has received nearly twice as many votes as two other candidates that were included.

The fact that I am a Ron Paul supporter personally does not mean the idea I am putting forth that it only makes sense to include Ron Paul in the Election Guide is not legitamate, or that it is biased. In fact, I'd happen to think that most people who are not Ron Paul supporters would have noticed something was missing, because they rely on your guide for showing them what the page suggests it displays, Primary Season Election Results.

The right margin clearly leaves enough room for one more candidate. Why not make an effort to be more accurate in providing resources to American voters by including a candidate who has received more actual votes than two candidates you have listed?

Is the page really meant to be a guide to completed contests? Using national polls as a metric for sorting the list beyond the amount of delegates they have already received honestly doesn't make any sense when it doesn't provide any resources beyond the day that the event is held. The page in question says Election Results, not how a small group of people nationally say they may vote.

Sorting the candidates by percentage of vote on the percentage of vote page only makes common sense. If there are no ulterior motives in not listing Ron Paul, then I see no legitamate reason he should not be. It is a disservice to your readers and the American election process to omit a candidate who is handily receiving more votes than other candidates you list - "national polls" are no justification for this lack of reporting facts.

I'm going to continue to pursue this matter until Ron Paul's handsome picture and the amount of votes he has received appears on this Election Guide, and I will continue to urge others to do the same. The American election process is far too crucial and important to let baseless omissions in reporting take place.

Thank you for your time.

Let's hit them some more! This isn't just about Ron Paul, it is about ensuring the media is held to an ethical standard higher than corporate interests.

[Bossobass]

We should get the Chinese to make a container of dildos with the
logo: 'Bend over, here comes the NYT'
Then stand on the street surrounding their HQ and hold one up
shouting, "Free with every subscription!".

Seriously folks. One RP rally in NY City, attended by 50,000 supporters
would put their Josef Stalin campaign reporting right where it belongs.
We have no power against that BS rag other than physical numbers
(which we have) and productive organization of those numbers,
which, sadly, we lack.

Bosso

[Tidewise]

I have been writing and getting the same response. I will continue to write (I have been polite, but pointing out how this impacts NYT credibility, blah blah blah).