I have been involved in a lot of discussions recently on ATS as to rather or not Ron Paul was treated fairly by the media, and thought this may shed
some light on the subject.
Google trends is a new tool that allows you to search how many google searches on a subject have been done by people, and compares that to the number
of news stories that have been done on those subjects. It also allows you to compare two or more subjects at a time.
So this makes it a very effective tool for tracking how popular a candidate is. Its like a poll taken everyday to see how much interest there is in a
candidate, except in normal polls only a couple of thousand are polled, but here there are millions a day. The more a candidates is searched, the
more popular they are. It also will allow you to see how news coverage affects a candidates popularity.
So, using this we can compare Ron Paul to other candidates, see how there popularity compares, and how news coverage corresponds.
Paul is in blue and McCain in red.
As you can clearly see, Paul is destroying McCain in popularity when their media coverage is close to the same. Bit notice how despite his
popularity, the news starts covering McCain overwhelmingly in the beginning of 2008.
Despite the fact that Paul is nearly three times as popular on the internet at the beginning of 2008, the media pays him very little attention
compared to McCain. This is crucial, as this is when voting is starting.
Then notice how much more ridiculous is gets as you move into 2008. At the B point it is February, and McCain is getting a whopping 5 times as much
coverage despite the fact at this point they are evenly popular. By looking at the graph, its clear to see Paul was covered barely at all compared to
McCain, despite his popularity.
Another thing to look at is how McCains popularity (top graph) corresponds to the coverage he gets (bottom graph). The graphs are almost an exact
match. This shows, as expected, that media coverage increases popularity. You will find that pretty much every candidate besides Ron Paul follows
the same pattern. At looking at all of the major candidates, Paul clearly has the lowest media coverage by far, and is the only one whos top graph of
popularity is very high compared to his bottom graph.
Lets look at Paul (blue) compared to Hillary Clinton (red)
Same story. Hillary gets overwhelming media attention compared to Paul, despite him having more popularity, and again her popularity directly links
with the coverage she got.
One more graph. This time lets compare Paul (blue) to Rudy Giuliani (red) whom Paul was beating in primaries in many states.
Notice how Rudy's media coverage is ridiculously higher than Pauls the whole way, despite the fact that Paul is way more popular. Its almost
laughable how much more coverage Rudy is getting betweens points E and F despite the fact of how more popular Paul was at the time. Even these graphs
show that when Rudy was getting more coverage, he was gaining popularity.
So the here are the conclusions reached from all of this.
1. At the beginning of 2008, Ron Paul led all candidates from both parties in searches.
2. Ron Paul got the least media coverage of all of the major candidates (by far) despite his overwhelming popularity.
3. Every candidate besides Paul had their popularity as a direct result of the coverage they got, so because Paul got so little coverage, the MEDIA
IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for his poor performance in the election!
You can go to Google trends and check it for out yourself if you want.
The real point of this is to show how the media controls our voting process. Even if you aren't a Ron Paul supporter, this should upset you, because
it shows that we don't live in a true Democratic Republic, because we can all of our elections are rigged to favor handpicked candidates. I don't
think we will ever have another truly democratically elected politician until this corruption ends.
[edit on 17-7-2008 by Grambler]
[edit on 17-7-2008 by Grambler]