Start documenting media bias against RP in this thread, NOW

[KramerDSP]

I found a few from 2007/2008:

- CNN Bias via pie chart ommisions
- Graphic example of Media blackout of Ron Paul (Fox News Omission)
- Was ABC News fair to Ron Paul Supporters? (Iowa 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoeoc...layer_embedded

[KramerDSP]

Ron Paul Blasts U.S. for "Propping up Puppet Dictator" in Egypt by Stephanie Condon of CBS News:

"WASHINGTON -- The Republican party's most serious potential presidential contenders at the Conservative Political Action Conference today gave little more than passing reference to the most serious news of the day - the resignation of Egyptian's authoritarian President Honsi Mubarak.

Yet Rep. Ron Paul -- who's arguably the most popular politician at the annual conservative conference, but not considered a viable presidential candidate -- seized the news to blast American foreign policy and promote his well-known preference for isolationism."

__________________________________________________ __

Fox News - Ron Paul Brings Down The House - by Jake Gibson":

"Paul hit on the idea of isolationism repeatedly."The Founding Fathers talked about staying out of foreign entanglements when it's none of our business."

Paul also revisited many of his favorite subjects, including ending the Federal Reserve Bank, protecting civil liberties and repealing the Patriot Act.

"The Patriot Act is literally the destruction of the fourth amendment."

Ron Paul supporters have been the loudest supporters over the course of CPAC, picking a fight with Donald Trump and trying to boo Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney off the stage Thursday.

Though it would surely enrage many Republicans if he wins the straw poll Saturday it should surprise no one."

[KramerDSP]

Fox News Poll Potential 2012 Head-to-Head Matchups, RP not given as option - Ron Paul Forums thread

[Bruno]

This could be the first example of when a major news network completely ignores a potential candidate, includes a bunch of relative unknowns, and then says the person they omitted (who was also a speaker), is the crowd favorite.

So we have this, with no Ron Paul listed,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ump-president/

Don't know if this makes me madder or sadder? Why do they deliberately leave him out?

Poll Results: http://http://www.foxnews.com/projec...ection_web.pdf
3. - 16. I’m going to read you a list of names -- for each one please tell me if you think that person would make a good president or not. If you have never heard of a person, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE) SCALE: 1. Yes 2. No 3. (Don’t know - vol.) 4. Never heard of
*** YES Ratings Summary ***
% Yes - All % Yes - GOP
Mike Huckabee 34 55
Mitt Romney 33 54
Newt Gingrich 23 43
Sarah Palin 23 40
Jeb Bush 21 39
Donald Trump 19 23
Chris Christie 18 29
Tim Pawlenty 13 21
Haley Barbour 11 16
Michele Bachmann 10 16
Rick Santorum 9 15
Mitch Daniels 8 13
John Thune 6 12
Jon Huntsman 6 10

Then also on Fox we have this:

[KramerDSP]

Ron Paul vs. The Media:

[UtahApocalypse]

Im even contemplating registering a domain and making a website of this.

+111111

[JamesButabi]

Im even contemplating registering a domain and making a website of this.

Now taking domain votes (or suggestions) and building templates.

RonPaulvstheWorld.com
RonPaulvsMedia.com
WhyRonPaulLost.com
RonPaulBias.com <-----I lean towards this. Simple, easy, and straightforward
DistortingRonPaul.com

[civusamericanus]

Website is good idea, but I think we need a whole sub forum on RPF to dump the info, then you can move it to a website taht can organize and disseminate the information the information. But it should start here, since you will get the most daily users.

So how about it? Ron Paul media bias Sub-Forum?

Isn't the media bias everytime they claim "Ron Paul Can't Win", they all love to say it! In reality, they are simply trying to manipulate the general public, if they say it enough times, it must be true!

[JamesButabi]

So how about it? Ron Paul media bias Sub-Forum?

That would help to gather and sort data immensely

[mello]

I never realized how biased the mainstream media was until I actually had someone I wanted to vote for.

[JVParkour]

That fox news poll that excluded Ron was just talked about on Fox. This was right after they said that Ron might win the CPAC straw poll... what a crap poll.

[Bruno]

Post that in Forums Feedback and Ideas. I like it.

Website is good idea, but I think we need a whole sub forum on RPF to dump the info, then you can move it to a website taht can organize and disseminate the information the information. But it should start here, since you will get the most daily users.

So how about it? Ron Paul media bias Sub-Forum?

Isn't the media bias everytime they claim "Ron Paul Can't Win", they all love to say it! In reality, they are simply trying to manipulate the general public, if they say it enough times, it must be true!

[KramerDSP]

Joe Klein: Time Magagine - "The Other Red Meat"

Foreign Policy: It has been widely noted that the would-be Presidents had little or nothing to sat about the events in Egypt. They also had little or nothing to say about the war in Afghanistan (with the exception of Ron Paul's well-known isolationism, a weird temptation for a party that was known for its isolationism until World War II).

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011...#ixzz1DmOxt94K

[malkusm]

Thanks guys. Haven't had much time to post recently, but I'll try to get this updated sometime soon.

[KramerDSP]

Thanks guys. Haven't had much time to post recently, but I'll try to get this updated sometime soon.

Can you organize it by sections? i.e., "Isolationist" (articles and writers who namedrop the isolationist term 4 years after Paul has clearly stated he is a non-interventionist and that the real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargos), "not a viable candidate", and any other relevant categories. It'd be great to see it in plain sight how many different media sources use the same terms over and over again. I daresay it could go viral if we designed the layout just right, with highlighted eye-popping smears and distortions.

[KramerDSP]

Los Angeles Times: 'Tea party' litmus tests pull Republicans to right - Paul West, Washington Bureau

National security, another traditional conservative concern, got little attention from the likely presidential candidates. The revolt against President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, playing out on TV screens in public areas of the conference hotel, was not mentioned by any candidates except former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas Rep. Paul, arguably the party's most prominent isolationist.

[KramerDSP]

MSNBC First Read by Carrie Dann: Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll

The selection of Paul – an isolationist, anti-war fiscal conservative who advocates for the dismantling of the Federal Reserve – as the attendees’ top choice to run for the White House signals a strong libertarian streak of many of the annual conference’s attendees, many of whom are students. Paul raised eye-popping sums on the web during his 2008 presidential run but almost certainly lacks the campaign organization and wide appeal with GOP primary voters to be a serious contender to win the nomination.

[KramerDSP]

So many reporters are still using the "isolationist" term when describing Ron Paul. It's intentional, and it must stop. Even if it is happening because of a combination of laziness and ignorance, we need to let these reporters feel the heat and change their ways.

I liked this response from a commentator responding to the Paul West article at the LA Times, minus the cap locks:

At this juncture, your continued use of the term ISOLATIONIST to describe Ron Paul's NON-INTERVENTIONIST foreign policy is an INTENTIONAL SMEAR of Ron Paul and the miilions of Americans who agree with the PROVED-CORRECT ADVICE OF THE FOUNDERS.

We need to contact these reporters and correct them on their use of the terminology. Cheney et al are the real isolationists, with sanctions and embargos, etc.

Reporters Using "Isolationist" Term:
NBC - Carrie Dann - Twitter - http://twitter.com/#!/carriedann

Los Angeles Times - Paul West, Washington Bureau - paul.west@latimes.com

Time Magazine - Joe Klein - Twitter (doesn't seem to use it much) - http://twitter.com/#!/JoeKleinTIME

Fox News - Jake Gibson - (can't find any contact info)

CBS News - Stephanie Condon - (can't find direct contact info, but the CBS Hot Sheet Twitter is http://twitter.com/#!/CBSNewsHotSheet

[KramerDSP]

A much better response to the claim that Ron Paul is an isolationist. It's so good, I would copy and paste it when sending it to reporters.

The U.S. News always lies, and falsely claims that Ron Paul is an "isolationist". This is not true.

Dick Cheney is an isolationist (opposed to all negotiations, opposed to all diplomacy, and seeks a Military-bloodshed only strategy of destruction -- clearly no approach could ever be more isolated than that one).

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. He is for peaceful cooperation, discussions, travel, diplomacy, trade, and non-violent relationships with all Nations (and no entangling alliances). This, quite obviously, is the precise opposite of isolation.

But what he rightfully rejects is this corrupt idea that our Country must act like the Roman Empire (or worse) and have 750 Military Bases in 130 Countries all over the World, illegally Invade Foreign Countries, have the CIA Assassinate and overthrow regimes, torture human beings, and have these futile endless Foreign Occupations in order to be "safe".

These illegitimate and criminal policies do not make us "safe". In fact, they are the very root cause and the real reason why other Countries wish to retaliate against the U.S. (and resort to terrorism). Most of the public rejects these unnecessarily violent policies anyway, and all of them would -- if they ever saw the photographs of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent children, girls, boys, young babies, woman, and men that have been wrongfully slaughtered, blown to bits, burned, murdered, and mamed by United States Foreign Policy. None of these people had anything to do with the Sept 11 incident. We do not have the right to slaughter millions of random people across the World just because of 19 hijackers. If any other Country behaved this way, we would call them out as World Tyrants and Barbarians.

The truth is that the actions of our U.S. Government (Invasions, Occupations) has killed far more Americans than any "terrorist" ever did, ever could, or ever would. We are our own worst enemy.

Ron Paul is right for wanting to change U.S. Foreign Policy (unlike Barack Obama who has only given us Bush's 3rd-term -- with endless Warfare, Occupations as far as the eye can see, Predator Drone Bombings, CIA Renditions, Military Tribunals, suspension of Habeas Corpus, War Crimes, criminalizing "Wikileaks" for reporting the truth, etc.) .

We don't need a dishonest Foreign Policy based on Global Bloodshed (and then wonder why do they hate us?).

We need an honest, law abiding, non-interventionist Foreign Policy based around the honorable concepts of peace, self-determination of Nations, freedom, and human rights. And there is nothing whatsoever isolationist about that!

[KramerDSP]

This is what I sent to Paul West.

Mr. West,

I write to you as a supporter of Representative Ron Paul. You recently submitted an article entitled "Tea Party Litmus Test Pull Republicans Right". In one section, you wrote:

"The revolt against President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, playing out on TV screens in public areas of the conference hotel, was not mentioned by any candidates except former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas Rep. Paul, arguably the party's most prominent isolationist."

I do not intend to yell at you or upset you. But I must be direct with you. The continued term of "isolationist" used with Ron Paul is both factually incorrect and, in my opinion, an intentional distortion and mischaracterization of his views. I cannot tell you how annoying it is to keep seeing reporter after reporter use this term. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. I like this summary of Paul's position, as it reflects the anger and frustration of Paul supporters with you and your colleagues in the media.

The U.S. News always lies, and falsely claims that Ron Paul is an "isolationist". This is not true.

Dick Cheney is an isolationist (opposed to all negotiations, opposed to all diplomacy, and seeks a Military-bloodshed only strategy of destruction -- clearly no approach could ever be more isolated than that one).

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. He is for peaceful cooperation, discussions, travel, diplomacy, trade, and non-violent relationships with all Nations (and no entangling alliances). This, quite obviously, is the precise opposite of isolation.

But what he rightfully rejects is this corrupt idea that our Country must act like the Roman Empire (or worse) and have 750 Military Bases in 130 Countries all over the World, illegally Invade Foreign Countries, have the CIA Assassinate and overthrow regimes, torture human beings, and have these futile endless Foreign Occupations in order to be "safe".

These illegitimate and criminal policies do not make us "safe". In fact, they are the very root cause and the real reason why other Countries wish to retaliate against the U.S. (and resort to terrorism). Most of the public rejects these unnecessarily violent policies anyway, and all of them would -- if they ever saw the photographs of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent children, girls, boys, young babies, woman, and men that have been wrongfully slaughtered, blown to bits, burned, murdered, and mamed by United States Foreign Policy. None of these people had anything to do with the Sept 11 incident. We do not have the right to slaughter millions of random people across the World just because of 19 hijackers. If any other Country behaved this way, we would call them out as World Tyrants and Barbarians.

The truth is that the actions of our U.S. Government (Invasions, Occupations) has killed far more Americans than any "terrorist" ever did, ever could, or ever would. We are our own worst enemy.

Ron Paul is right for wanting to change U.S. Foreign Policy (unlike Barack Obama who has only given us Bush's 3rd-term -- with endless Warfare, Occupations as far as the eye can see, Predator Drone Bombings, CIA Renditions, Military Tribunals, suspension of Habeas Corpus, War Crimes, criminalizing "Wikileaks" for reporting the truth, etc.) .

We don't need a dishonest Foreign Policy based on Global Bloodshed (and then wonder why do they hate us?).

We need an honest, law abiding, non-interventionist Foreign Policy based around the honorable concepts of peace, self-determination of Nations, freedom, and human rights. And there is nothing whatsoever isolationist about that! "

Every other article about Paul insinuates that he is unelectable, and the media does not seem to realize that there is a growing groundswell, not just in this country but around the world. Ron Paul represents real change in the eyes of many, and I respectfully ask that if you write about him in the future, you label him as the non-interventionist he is. I would also hope you educate your peers on the incorrect terminology being used. I would love to engage in a dialogue with you about this if you ever had time, as I am a Deaf supporter of his who has an interesting story to share and insights about the Ron Paul Revolution.

Yours Truly,

[low preference guy]

I think you should give examples of other reporters using the word correctly, rather than saying "I send this to so many reporters!".

This article uses non-interventionism correctly:

Furthermore, the supporters of both Pauls, junior and senior, are avowedly non-interventionist in matters of foreign policy and decry the ubiquitous presence of US troops overseas, which Rumsfeld championed during his two terms as secretary of defence.

Tea Party declares war on military spending (Guardian)

[sratiug]

Deleted, posted in wrong thread, oops.

[civusamericanus]

PBS - Your Tax Dollars, doesn't mention the straw poll winner. They however have him in a window box of 4 people speaking at 35 secs. haha

[Bern]

These are not Ron Paul specific, but very good for driving home the point that media bias is not related to market demand, but is politically motivated:

Charlie Gasparino, who recently left CNBC not on the best of terms, and ever since has been casting stone after stone at his former megalith employer, was on the O'Reilly Factor earlier, confirming what everyone has known for a long, long time, namely that CNBC's pro administration bias which appeared spontaneously and unexpectedly in early 2009, came from the very top, i.e., Jeff Immelt himself. Quote Gasparino: "There was this issue where Jeff Immelt, Chairman of GE, called in some of the senior staff [of CNBC] and clearly was worried, according to the people I spoke to, who were in that meeting, about the possibility that we were becoming too "anti-administration." They will deny it officially, but from what I understand, people got called into this meeting and they were basically not exactly read the riot act, but the question of whether they were being fair to the president was brought up. I have never heard that before." ...

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gas...ing-anti-obama

Humorous stunt highlights the polarization of the news (both by what they are doing and who they excluded - it's Pepsi vs. Coke):

Four billboard trucks bearing the message “Stop the Liberal Bias, Tell the Truth!” began circling the Manhattan headquarters of ABC, CBS, NBC, and the New York Times on Friday. The trucks will do so for eight hours every weekday for the next four weeks as part of a campaign run by the Media Research Center, a watchdog group that analyzes the media for liberal bias.

Similar trucks also are operating in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, passing the offices of the broadcast networks, the Washington Post, CNN, the Newseum, the National Press Club and Politico, and ads about the campaign are running on numerous Web sites and on conservative talk radio programs.

L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center (MRC), the parent organization of CNSNews.com, said the goal of this 2010 “Tell the Truth!” campaign “is simple: to force the liberals in the media to stop pushing an agenda and just tell the truth.”
...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/truc...c-challenge-li

Imagine that a controversy existed regarding a republican candidate like the one surrounding whether Attorney General Jack Conway improperly injected himself into a criminal investigation of his brother. Don't you think the two major newspapers and the broadcast media would have gone wall to wall by now?

Take for example the way they treated Ernie Fletcher. One state employee complained that department heads had improperly taken politics into consideration when dealing with personnel issues. That's it. That was the controversy. But what happened was nothing less than a feeding frenzy determined to bring down an entire administration.

Here the evidence from his own words and very reliable police records indicates that the press in Kentucky might have known that Jack Conway had involved himself in what some have said "chilled" a criminal investigation into allegations that his brother was a drug dealer.

Where's the outrage? Why did the Courier run with the story only after other news outlets seemed to have discovered it? Why did they not even mention Jack Conway in the headline? Why has the press been so quick to dismiss any claims of impropriety on the word of Conway that he merely advised his brother to seek counsel?

No doubt the Courier and the Lexington Herald Leader want Jack Conway to win. But likewise there is no doubt why the mainstream media is losing readers, laying off employees, and watching as their revenues drop so low that some publications are being sold for a dollar.

They have shamed themselves, shown their true colors and no longer command any respect.

Want to get a bunch of readers? Want to get back on top? Try doing your job, with integrity, for a change.

http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/201...ue-colors.html

Anchorage CBS Affiliate Caught on Voicemail Conspiring Against Alaska's GOP Senate Candidate

The following voice mail message was inadvertently left on the cell phone of Joe Miller campaign spokesperson Randy DeSoto.

The voices are believed to be those of the news director for CBS Anchorage affiliate KTVA, along with assignment editor Nick McDermott, and other reporters, openly discussing creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller.

The following is a transcript of a call recorded after CBS Alaska affiliate KTVA called Joe Miller’s Senate campaign spokesperson. The call failed to disconnect properly. It was later authenticated by McDermott, who sent a text to Randy DeSoto stating, “Damn iPhone… I left you a long message. I thought I hung up. Sorry.”
...

FEMALE REPORTER: That’s up to you because you're the expert, but that’s what I would do...I’d wait until you see who showed up because that indicates we already know something...
[Laughter]
[INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters...
MALE REPORTER: Oh yeah... can you repeat Joe Miller’s...uh... list of people, campaign workers, which one's the molester?
[INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender.
[Laughter]
MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person...
[INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is ....we won’t know....we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the... ‘Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.’
FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul...I like that.
[Laughter]
FEMALE REPORTER: That’s a good one.

http://biggovernment.com/publius/201...ate-candidate/

Unnamed source, so FWIW:

...
Note the story here isn’t that Fox News leans right. Everyone knows the channel pushes a conservative-friendly version of the news. Everyone who’s been paying attention has known that since the channel’s inception more than a decade ago. The real story, and the real danger posed by the cable outlet, is that over time Fox News stopped simply leaning to the right and instead became an open and active political player, sort of one-part character assassin and one-part propagandist, depending on which party was in power. And that the operation thrives on fabrications and falsehoods.

“They say one thing and do another. They insist on maintaining this charade, this façade, that they’re balanced or that they’re not right-wing extreme propagandist,” says the source. But it’s all a well-orchestrated lie, according this former insider. It’s a lie that permeates the entire Fox News culture and one that staffers and producers have to learn quickly in order to survive professionally.

“You have to work there for a while to understand the nods and the winks,” says the source. “And God help you if you don’t because sooner or later you’re going to get burned.”

The source explains:

“Like any news channel there’s lot of room for non-news content. The content that wasn’t ‘news,’ they didn’t care what we did with as long as it was amusing or quirky or entertaining; as along as it brought in eyeballs. But anything—anything--that was a news story you had to understand what the spin should be on it. If it was a big enough story it was explained to you in the morning [editorial] meeting. If it wasn’t explained, it was up to you to know the conservative take on it. There’s a conservative take on every story no matter what it is. So you either get told what it is or you better intuitively know what it is.”

What if Fox News staffers aren’t instinctively conservative or don’t have an intuitive feeling for what the spin on a story should be? “My internal compass was to think like an intolerant meathead,” the source explains. “You could never error on the side of not being intolerant enough.”

The source recalls how Fox News changed over time:

“When I first got there back in the day, and I don’t know how they indoctrinate people now, but back in the day when they were “training” you, as it were, they would say, ‘Here’s how we’re different.’ They’d say if there is an execution of a condemned man at midnight and there are all the live truck outside the prison and all the lives shots. CNN would go, ‘Yes, tonight John Jackson, 25 of Mississippi, is going to die by lethal injection for the murder of two girls.’ MSNBC would say the same thing.

“We would come out and say, ‘Tonight, John Jackson who kidnapped an innocent two year old, raped her, sawed her head off and threw it in the school yard, is going to get the punishment that a jury of his peers thought he should get.’ And they say that’s the way we do it here. And you’re going , alright, it’s a bit of an extreme example but it’s something to think about. It’s not unreasonable.

"When you first get in they tell you we’re a bit of a counterpart to the screaming left wing lib media. So automatically you have to buy into the idea that the other media is howling left-wing. Don’t even start arguing that or you won’t even last your first day.

“For the first few years it was let’s take the conservative take on things. And then after a few years it evolved into, well it’s not just the conservative take on things, we’re going to take the Republican take on things which is not necessarily in lock step with the conservative point of view.

“And then two, three, five years into that it was, we’re taking the Bush line on things, which was different than the GOP. We were a Stalin-esque mouthpiece. It was just what Bush says goes on our channel. And by that point it was just totally dangerous. Hopefully most people understand how dangerous it is for a media outfit to be a straight, unfiltered mouthpiece for an unchecked president.”

It’s worth noting that Fox News employees, either current or former, rarely speak to the press, even anonymously. And it’s even rarer for Fox News sources to bad mouth Murdoch’s channel. That’s partly because of strict non-disclosure agreements that most exiting employees sign and which forbid them from discussing their former employer. But it also stems from a pervasive us-vs.-them attitude that permeates Fox News. It’s a siege mentality that network boss Roger Ailes encourages, and one that colors the coverage his team produces.

“It was a kick ass mentality too,” says the former Fox News insider. “It was relentless and it never went away. If one controversy faded, goddamn it they would find another one. They were in search of these points of friction real or imagined. And most of them were imagined or fabricated. You always have to seem to be under siege. You always have to seem like your values are under attack. The brain trust just knew instinctively which stories to do, like the War on Christmas.”
...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102100007

Media bias in a headline:

[Bern]

Forgot to include this (SIAP):

[walt]

The media isn't going to change their ways until after the revolution.

What do you hope to accomplish with this thread?

[Bern]

...
What do you hope to accomplish with this thread?

Education. Wake up some zombies. People need constant reminders.

Remember this?

November 17th was the day in history when…

1992: Dateline NBC aired a demonstration showing a General Motors truck blowing up on impact. The show did a piece on GM trucks contending that there was a design flaw. According to the report the fuel tank was placed too close to the front of the vehicle and was prone to exploding on impact. Dateline showed a test in which a truck burst into flames after a slow speed collision. General Motors closely studied the tape and determined that the tank was smoking prior to impact. GM sued NBC for libel. NBC admitted that they had rigged the fuel tank to explode. As part of the settlement, Dateline’s anchor, Jane Pauley, read a three and a half minute on-air apology. Several people, including a few producers and the reporter, were fired.
...

http://www.examiner.com/today-histor...on-not-a-crook

No one took Dateline seriously after that for a long time. Destroy the media's credibility with their audience and they lose their power.

New media >>> old media

The truth is out there.

[Bern]

[Working Poor]

Im even contemplating registering a domain and making a website of this.

Get a Google blog too it is free and you can name it what ever you want.

[Bergie Bergeron]

This is what I sent to Paul West.

This should be sent to every reporter that used the word isolationism.