Stop complaining

[Matt23]

The media is not going to report Paul if he comes <5% in every a state. Why in the hell would they waste time on him when he is only 3% in a state.

"OMG this just in, Ron Paul has 3% and is closing on McCain who has 50%"

There going to keep ignoring Paul untill he can be considered "in the race". So stop saying "OMG they didnt show Paul when he had 3% in illinois"

Just stop bitching and win a state so we can actually be reported.

[StopTheNWO]

Lawlersk8tzorz VROOOOOM

Couldn't agree more. We spend too much time scouring the internet for BS when we could be talking to our neighbors.

[tribute_13]

He finished second in Montana and I didn't hear a damn thing about it. I understand that he isn't really a threat yet in the race, I mean he only has 16 delegates out of the 1191 he needs! So why report him? But when he is raising more money than any other candidate and is winning more straw polls than anyone, I think he deserves at least a POSTIVE story whether it's on the news for only 2 minutes or not. I was reading the newspaper the other day and realized that in the Democratic Caucuses, being there are only three candidates, I don't think it would hurt to write one more sentence in the entire article saying how Mike Gravel did. Sure he is an unknown who is doing absolutely horrible but still, he is a candidate and should be reported. It doesn't only apply to Dr. Paul, it applies to mostly to whoever GE or other corporations tell the media company they own to cover so the candidate doesn't threaten their pocket and checkbooks. It's a popularity contest just like in High School. If you don't win the hearts of your fellow classmates, why should anyone care about you or your motives? Ron Paul is the smart geek that decided to run to make a difference and was shot down by the jock with a lisp because he gave money to everyone to vote for him. Except this popularity contest is destroying our country. Ahnuld was elected because he was a movie star, people only knew of Fred Thompson because he was in L&O, and Huckabee is only doing well because Chuck Norris endorsed him. I respect Ron Paul for being real and not bending to Demographics, he is a hell of a lot better in my book and deserves more coverage. What Ron Paul needs is an endorsement with some benefits like Bill Gates or Vin Diesel or something.

[colin1]

The media is not going to report Paul if he comes <5% in every a state. Why in the hell would they waste time on him when he is only 3% in a state.

"OMG this just in, Ron Paul has 3% and is closing on McCain who has 50%"

There going to keep ignoring Paul untill he can be considered "in the race". So stop saying "OMG they didnt show Paul when he had 3% in illinois"

Just stop bitching and win a state so we can actually be reported.

You're missing the point, it's completely circular:

Ron Paul can't win because he's not shown in the media, so the media doesn't report on him because he can't win.

We're complaining because the other candidates received boatloads of free and uncritical publicity. For instance, even though John McCain was broke, not polling well and didn't have much of any grassroots support, he was able to stay in the race and breakthrough largely because of massive media coverage.

[tarabyte]

We did better than 3%, in several states we had over 15% of the vote. We won second in a few states as well.

However, Colin is right that we're in a catch-22 situation. Just look at how McCain was broke and likely to drop out, yet the MSM gave him the "bump" and now he is winning. It was not long ago that McCain was considered a longshot instead of a frontrunner.

[VoteForRonPaul]

I think it is so ridiculous to ask people to not complain. Everybody has the right to complain, every trusted MSM has to report every single candidate, it does not matter how good or bad the candidate is 1% 3% it does not matter. What you are doing right now is simply wrong! because you are giving them the excuse and incentive to be unfair! We should keep pressuring the MSM in all cases, no matter what! We have to show them that they are unfair at all times!

[Ira Aten]

It was not long ago that McCain was considered a longshot instead of a frontrunner.

Well, right afer McCain gets the nomination, don't worry, the msm will make him an asterisk with "sudden discovery" of McCain's violent, uncontrollable temper, as evidenced by his cursing out numerous Senators, and telling them F you, and calling them A holes as UNWIDELY reported in the Boston Herald in May of 2007.

Just as soon as he is running against Hillary of Obama, McCain will be dropped in the grease by the media.

Don't worry. They eat their own eventually.

[colin1]

Well, right afer McCain gets the nomination, don't worry, the msm will make him an asterisk with "sudden discovery" of McCain's violent, uncontrollable temper, as evidenced by his cursing out numerous Senators, and telling them F you, and calling them A holes as UNWIDELY reported in the Boston Herald in May of 2007.

Just as soon as he is running against Hillary of Obama, McCain will be dropped in the grease by the media.

Don't worry. They eat their own eventually.

Let's not forget he was one of the Keating Five...and oh, that little inconvenient fact that whole POW/MIA movement thinks he's betrayed his fellow servicemen. There's plenty o' skeletons that will come tumbling out of that closet.

[Matt23]

He finished second in Montana and I didn't hear a damn thing about it.

Cmon man you really thin the media is going to go out of there way to report Paul in second place in a state where 1500 people voted. Theres 23 other primaries going on, why would they report a second place guy in this state.

You're missing the point, it's completely circular:

Ron Paul can't win because he's not shown in the media, so the media doesn't report on him because he can't win.

We're complaining because the other candidates received boatloads of free and uncritical publicity. For instance, even though John McCain was broke, not polling well and didn't have much of any grassroots support, he was able to stay in the race and breakthrough largely because of massive media coverage.

Your missing my point, the media doesn't report him because he was never up in the polls, NEVER.

McCain atleast was polling about 20% when he was in that down time.

[ArrestPoliticians]

The media is not going to report Paul if he comes <5% in every a state. Why in the hell would they waste time on him when he is only 3% in a state.

"OMG this just in, Ron Paul has 3% and is closing on McCain who has 50%"

There going to keep ignoring Paul untill he can be considered "in the race". So stop saying "OMG they didnt show Paul when he had 3% in illinois"

Just stop bitching and win a state so we can actually be reported.

they didnt report on Ron when he came in second either. They barely reported on him before the primaries started. As a matter of fact, a total blackout occurred as soon as he came in second in nevada.

Quit being a counter-revolutionary. Blame the media. They didnt even give the American people the option to CHOOSE freedom over fascism, thats what really pisses me off.

[wowabunga]

I can not vote for the "rest of the pack" and have only one choice... continue to push the message of Ron Paul and the Revolution.

Stick a fork in the entire Republican Party... the people of the US are vote'n for the Dems by the 100's of thousands and the Repubs are getting 10's of thousands.

[VoteForRonPaul]

Come on guys, there are no excuses for the MSM to ignore any candidate whether big or small!

[ArrestPoliticians]

Cmon man you really thin the media is going to go out of there way to report Paul in second place in a state where 1500 people voted. Theres 23 other primaries going on, why would they report a second place guy in this state.



Your missing my point, the media doesn't report him because he was never up in the polls, NEVER.

McCain atleast was polling about 20% when he was in that down time.

He wasnt polling well because they made sure no one knew who he was. Everyone knows that elections in the beginning are popularity contests. The only people that were known coming into the election were giuliani, mccain, and thompson. Romney and Huckabee were given free rides.

[Matt23]

they didnt report on Ron when he came in second either. They barely reported on him before the primaries started. As a matter of fact, a total blackout occurred as soon as he came in second in nevada.

Quit being a counter-revolutionary. Blame the media. They didnt even give the American people the option to CHOOSE freedom over fascism, thats what really pisses me off.

look, you can't blame all of RP's results on the media so stop the bitching, its not going to solve much. I agree that the media does black him out but it would help if he was actually up in the polls for once, that way they have to report it. To counter attack the media you should be informing people going door to door telling them about Paul. Not sitting at your computer complaining.

[ArrestPoliticians]

look, you can't blame all of RP's results on the media so stop the bitching, its not going to solve much. I agree that the media does black him out but it would help if he was actually up in the polls for once, that way they have to report it. To counter attack the media you should be informing people going door to door telling them about Paul. Not sitting at your computer complaining.

I paid 350 dollars of my own money to go to iowa to canvas . BLAME THE MEDIA. We did our best. just look at iowa, Huckabee had massive media coverage, RP has ZERO besides ads he was running, a campaign staff 4 times bigger than Huckabees. and 350 student volunteers including myself. "He cant win" mentality brought on by the MSM lost us that state.

[VoteForRonPaul]

look, you can't blame all of RP's results on the media so stop the bitching, its not going to solve much. I agree that the media does black him out but it would help if he was actually up in the polls for once, that way they have to report it. To counter attack the media you should be informing people going door to door telling them about Paul. Not sitting at your computer complaining.

He has all the right to complain and no excuses for the media!

[HOLLYWOOD]

We did better than 3%, in several states we had over 15% of the vote. We won second in a few states as well.

However, Colin is right that we're in a catch-22 situation. Just look at how McCain was broke and likely to drop out, yet the MSM gave him the "bump" and now he is winning. It was not long ago that McCain was considered a longshot instead of a frontrunner.

McCain, McLierman and LOBBYISTS/PACS/SOCIOCENTRIC ELITIST/WEALTH.... yotta yotta

Who OWNS the MSM and supports McCain? AND YOU ALL KNOW McCAIN is a TOTAL SELLOUT to the special interest!

Columbia Journalism Review at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism has this nice page to follow the trail of Media Control "Who Owns What":

http://www.cjr.org/resources/

[IowaGarrett]

You first.

Whiner.

The media is not going to report Paul if he comes <5% in every a state. Why in the hell would they waste time on him when he is only 3% in a state.

"OMG this just in, Ron Paul has 3% and is closing on McCain who has 50%"

There going to keep ignoring Paul untill he can be considered "in the race". So stop saying "OMG they didnt show Paul when he had 3% in illinois"

Just stop bitching and win a state so we can actually be reported.

[colin1]

look, you can't blame all of RP's results on the media so stop the bitching, its not going to solve much. I agree that the media does black him out but it would help if he was actually up in the polls for once, that way they have to report it. To counter attack the media you should be informing people going door to door telling them about Paul. Not sitting at your computer complaining.

And how exactly did an unknown governor from Arkansas like Huckabee get moving in the polls? Fundraising? Grassroots support? No, lots of free and uncritical media coverage. People rely on the media to tell them about "legitimate" candidates. If the candidate doesn't get coverage he isn't "legitimate" in many people's eyes.

[bcreps85]

They don't report when he comes in second either. They aren't going to report on him period, if people know about him he might get votes.

[jmdrake]

The media is not going to report Paul if he comes <5% in every a state. Why in the hell would they waste time on him when he is only 3% in a state.

"OMG this just in, Ron Paul has 3% and is closing on McCain who has 50%"

There going to keep ignoring Paul untill he can be considered "in the race". So stop saying "OMG they didnt show Paul when he had 3% in illinois"

Just stop bitching and win a state so we can actually be reported.

When Ron Paul got 2nd place at 14% in Nevada that was ignored. Ron Paul possibly winning Louisiana has been ignored. Ron Paul was OBVIOUSLY cheated in that state. So its an easy recipe Ron Paul to be ignored. When he comes in at anything less than first ignore it. When it looks like he might win just cheat then ignore it. Yes we need to win a state. But we're fighting an uphill battle.

[jmdrake]

look, you can't blame all of RP's results on the media so stop the bitching, its not going to solve much. I agree that the media does black him out but it would help if he was actually up in the polls for once, that way they have to report it. To counter attack the media you should be informing people going door to door telling them about Paul. Not sitting at your computer complaining.

Gee, and you were typing this on your laptop while driving to your next door to door engagement? Do we all need to work? Yes. But guess what? When I went door to door recently someone kept asking me "Isn't that the candidate that dropped out"? Two of the local newspapers implied this even though it wasn't true.

Anyway, Super Tuesday is over. Going door to door in my state won't do any good at this point I'm afraid. And my family responsibilities limit what I can do outside the state. I'll be happy to burn you some DVDs if you need them.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Czolgosz]

There's like 25 candidates running in the primaries, y'all can't expect the media to report on them all.

[ArrestPoliticians]

There's like 25 candidates running in the primaries, y'all can't expect the media to report on them all.

No, just the top 4

[Czolgosz]

No, just the top 4

Exactly.

[Mini-Me]

Top four...you mean like Giuliani and Thompson?

The fact is, the media gave free, uncritical attention to Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee. Out of these five, Romney and Huckabee were COMPLETE unknowns before the media showered them with free love. The media could have given this same free, unearned attention to other candidates like Paul, Hunter, Tancredo, or Keyes, but they didn't. Do you know why? Because those candidates are not total pawns of the establishment. It has nothing to do with poll results - that is simply a flimsy excuse that they use to cover their corrupt asses. While Paul is the only one with even a decent platform, we have to recognize that he wasn't the only one slighted. However, he's definitely the one that's been slighted the most, even in the face of immense fundraising presence, grassroots support, debate ownage, and primary performances that outshined some of the media's favorites (mostly Giuliani and Thompson)! People say "If Paul was up in polls, they'd report on him," but that's completely bogus: Not only have they given others free, unwarranted coverage, they've blacked Paul out even when he HAS earned coverage. (Such as in Nevada, Lousiana, etc.)

Bottom line: The media is not even pretending to "cover" this election. They've been outright manipulating it from the very beginning.

[Czolgosz]

Top four...you mean like Giuliani and Thompson?

The fact is, the media gave free, uncritical attention to Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee. Out of these five, Romney and Huckabee were COMPLETE unknowns before the media showered them with free love. The media could have given this same free, unearned attention to other candidates like Paul,
...
outshined some of the media's favorites (mostly Giuliani and Thompson)! People say "If Paul was up in polls, they'd report on him," but that's completely bogus: Not only have they given others free, unwarranted coverage, they've blacked Paul out even when he HAS earned coverage. (Such as in Nevada, Lousiana, etc.)

Bottom line: The media is not even pretending to "cover" this election. They've been outright manipulating it from the very beginning.

Good post.

The shining example of media bias that I'll use is the "Republican" "Debate" at the Ronald Reagan Presidential library. Why invite the top four contenders if you're only going to ask questions of the top two? b.s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1uZBiOnWt0

[BillyDkid]

You know what? I'm going to complain all I want and I encourage all other to complain all they want too. The directive came down from the GOP to media to marginalize, discredit and ignore Ron Paul and I'm going to complain about it and I'm going to keep complaining about it. I'm going to write letters saying that it is not the media's right to decide for the American people which candidate they are allowed to hear and which candidates they are allowed to take seriously. I am going to complain about the fact that Huckabee would not have even been a factor in this race if the media hadn't propped him up until he became one. I'm going to complain about media shills like Anderson Cooper and his obvious contempt for Ron Paul. I'm going to complain about the way CNN made a special point of capturing the smirks and titters of Romney and McCain each of the few times Dr. Paul was allowed to speak. I'm going to keep complaining about it and I'm certainly not going to stop because some self appointed forum nanny doesn't condone it.

[a_moran3]

We're not expecting headline news but we are expecting fair coverage. When they keep saying that there are only two or three candidates in the race that is just blatantly untrue. A mention there, a picture there, an issue there. "Now that Romney has suspended his campaign, there are three candidates left: John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul." Not, "Since Romney has suspended his campaign, we're just down to TWO candidates. Hear what I said? TWO candidates. Not three but TWO."

Or how about when they show the candidates, how about showing ALL of them not just the five. Show a pic of Gravel and of course show a pic of Dr. Paul.

The "historic" CNN debate was a joke. It was obviously there for ratings, it was blatant that they invite Mike Gravel because it was in the best interests of CNN not the American people.

So when someone like you comes along, and I don't mean any disrespect, and tells us that we should stop complaining that we're not getting decent coverage of OUR candidate (not mine but OURS), then you sir should not be part of this Revolution.

Ron Paul for President 2008!

[Energy]

Dr Paul's coverage in a December week - 0.2% - was too small to even put on the graph:





from http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=100886