Who can beat Obama? More censoring of Ron Paul by the MSM.

I apologize I didn't record the first 30 seconds of the piece. It took me a bit to boot up my iPhone and start recording. But basically, the initial question asked to the governor was: "Who can beat Obama?" She mentioned Rick Perry & Bachmann, but not 1 mention of Ron Paul.



Just some key points in the piece I want to touch on:

-"People are looking for somebody else and haven't seen that candidate yet." Um, hello? Ron Paul. Have you even seen the recent polls and support he has been getting? He just raised $1.6 million on his birthday, for pete's sake!
-Chris Christie and Sarah Palin: really?
-"Paul Ryan is getting at the issues and talking about them, which you don't see any of the other candidates doing right now. Not coming up with serious positions on the big issues that affect us" Uh... Did she even watch the debate, and see how Ron Paul pointed out all the issues with our gov't while the other candidates dodged questions?
-"Primaries allow people to see who they think they can trust, who speaks from the heart, and who they think will follow through. The American people are not stupid and can see through the lib answers and superficial discussions." Ahem. Ron Paul. Period.

I find it highly ironic that FoxNews had a piece last week touching on how the media censors Ron Paul, and here they are again, totally ignoring him. As she was talking, the Dow dropped 20 points, further illustrating the weakness of the market, and gold was up $40. Gold has risen $300 in the last month. If that isn't a parabolic move, then I don't know what is. The dollar is dying and we need someone like Dr. Paul, a former OBGYN, to deliver us a new currency that returns us to the gold standard.

reply to post by mossme89


"Can any of the current GOP 2012 candidates beat President Obama?"

What is there to beat? Are they asking which candidate can more effectively lie to the public in order to get elected? Or which candidate can sit on their ass and play the blame game best? I can't understand why anybody would even want to elect Obama again, I can't think of anything too profound that he's done during his presidency.

Hmm....which one could beat Obama? Well, surely not the candidate who just released a campaign ad titled "The One Who Can Beat Obama", nah not that guy, let's ignore him:

Also, why do you watch mainstream news if you can clearly see their bias? Ron Paul supporters should start their own news station.

3:00 -- That description sounded a lot like Ron Paul.

Ron Paul will have to start bringing his poll numbers up to start getting mentioned with those other folk. Realclearpolitics still has Guiliani polling better than him and he's not even in the race.

reply to post by kro32

Ron Paul will have to start bringing his poll numbers up to start getting mentioned with those other folk. Realclearpolitics still has Guiliani polling better than him and he's not even in the race.

You say he's being ignored by the MSM because he is polling poorly, but I say he is polling poorly because he is being ignored by the MSM.

reply to post by TupacShakur


All the stations are bias. I watch it because I follow the stock market, so I usually flip between Fox Business and CNBC. This was on Fox Business.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by kro32

 

Ron Paul will have to start bringing his poll numbers up to start getting mentioned with those other folk. Realclearpolitics still has Guiliani polling better than him and he's not even in the race.

You say he's being ignored by the MSM because he is polling poorly, but I say he is polling poorly because he is being ignored by the MSM.

Actually it's hard to turn on the t.v. without seeing Ron Paul around. I see no shortage of coverage for him.

It's funny that those that make this claim often have a brand new video clip featuring...guess who...Ron Paul in a new interview.

reply to post by kro32

Actually it's hard to turn on the t.v. without seeing Ron Paul around. I see no shortage of coverage for him.

It's funny that those that make this claim often have a brand new video clip featuring...guess who...Ron Paul in a new interview.

I'll try to find the video, but there was a statistic given on a story about Ron Paul, and
Donald Trump, who wasn't even running for president, had 3X as many news stories than Ron Paul has this year.

I can't find the video that I saw that on, but here: Donald Trump’s candidacy received 3x more coverage than Ron Paul’s candidacy

Here's some more:

PEJ also looked specifically at the network morning andevening news programs, primetime cable news programs and Sunday morning shows on August 14 and 15. The results?

According to that analysis, Paul was mentioned just 29 times. By comparison, Perry was mentioned 371 times, Bachmann was mentioned 274 times, and Romney was mentioned 183 times.

Media bias.

And I'm sure you've seen the Jon Stewart clip that compiles all of the MSM stations ignoring/bashing Ron Paul.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Yes of course and i'm sure the numbers support that however he is not going to be getting the same amount of coverage while his numbers are low. Perry entered the race with double the numbers Paul is at so of course he is going to get more.

Not sure why this is hard to understand.

reply to post by kro32

Yes of course and i'm sure the numbers support that however he is not going to be getting the same amount of coverage while his numbers are low. Perry entered the race with double the numbers Paul is at so of course he is going to get more.

Not sure why this is hard to understand.

What's hard to understand is how people can not only justify but defend a corrupted mainstream media that is clearly biased when it comes to Ron Paul. First you came in here and said that he wasn't being ignored, then I proved you wrong, now you're saying "Oh, well, yeah, he is getting ignored, but what do you expect?"

Your willingness to defend the mainstream media on this subject is sickening.

reply to post by TupacShakur


He is not being ignored as I stated that he seems to be everywhere but when you analyze the numbers and say he is receiving less time than the other candidates I will say it's because his poll numbers are lower than theirs. MSM is in the business to make money and they do that by producing stories about more popular topics.

kro, I have to admit that you're a hell of a troll man

reply to post by kro32

He is not being ignored

Did you miss this post? Let me re-post this again:

PEJ also looked specifically at the network morning andevening news programs, primetime cable news programs and Sunday morning shows on August 14 and 15. The results?

According to that analysis, [color=limegreen]Paul was mentioned just 29 times. By comparison, Perry was mentioned 371 times, Bachmann was mentioned 274 times, and Romney was mentioned 183 times.

Those three candidates are getting 10X the coverage that Ron Paul is! How can you say he's not being ignored? Because he's had a few interviews?

but when you analyze the numbers and say he is receiving less time than the other candidates I will say it's because his poll numbers are lower than theirs. MSM is in the business to make money and they do that by producing stories about more popular topics.

He's polling poorly because he is receiving less attention. If Ron Paul got the same amount of coverage as the "Top Tier" that followed the Iowa Debate (Even though the poll that followed that debate said Ron Paul won by almost twice as much as the candidate in second, so why he wasn't included in this "Top Tier" is beyond me.), he would be polling much higher.

reply to post by illuminatislave


I fail to see why you think i'm trolling so perhaps you could point out your logic. I gave very specific answers to the questions posed by the OP so sorry if you don't like it.

Maybe you could argue the points of what you disagree with regarding my statement instead of throwing out the troll word.

reply to post by TupacShakur


This is simply not true. Perry entered the race with less coverage and higher poll numbers than Paul so what you just stated is irrelevant.

Pauls also had 30 years of coverage to get his message out in case you've forgotten. I'm sure he is quite ahead in mentions in the press.

reply to post by kro32

This is simply not true.

But it is true, would you like me to post the proof for the third time?:

PEJ also looked specifically at the network morning andevening news programs, primetime cable news programs and Sunday morning shows on August 14 and 15. The results?

According to that analysis, [color=limegreen]Paul was mentioned just 29 times. By comparison, Perry was mentioned 371 times, Bachmann was mentioned 274 times, and Romney was mentioned 183 times.

[color=limegreen]Perry entered the race with less coverage and higher poll numbers than Paul so what you just stated is irrelevant.

You're wrong about him having "less coverage" dude, did you read that quote that I've posted three times? He entered the race in August, and that study was done in mid-August, and found that Perry had 13X the coverage that Ron Paul had.

How do you expect Ron Paul to win polls if he is getting 10X less coverage than those three candidates?

I think that more coverage correlates with higher poll numbers, because millions of people watch those networks and get their political information from them alone.

Very well you have the numbers there so I won't argue that with you as you've obviously produced factual evidence. I will debate this point however.

Have you thought that perhaps his numbers are low simply because people don't like his stances on the issues? What you are saying is that the American people are so stupid that they can't make up their own mind and can only pick who is covered the most.

So if the MSM all covered Charlie Brown he would be our next President? While you bring up very good points but I believe this is nothing more that to attempt to push Pauls impending doom on everything other than the candidate himself.

Your also forgetting that Paul has an advantage over the other canidates with the exception of Romney in that he's already run a full campaign just 4 years ago and his message hasn't changed. I doubt if you can find anyone that's going to vote that isn't more familiar with Paul already than they are with the other candidates.

He doesn't need as much coverage as the other people to make his name familiar.

reply to post by kro32

What you are saying is that the American people are so stupid that they can't make up their own mind and can only pick who is covered the most.

No no no no no, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that the American people don't get a chance to make up their own minds. Mainstream media should be unbiased, and should give candidates equal amounts of air time with which they can state their stances on issues, and let the American people decide.

Instead, we have a system that chooses the candidates for the American people, and decides which candidates will get air-time and which candidates we will be most informed about.

Have you thought that perhaps his numbers are low simply because people don't like his stances on the issues?

If Americans disagree with Ron Pauls stance on ending the wars, ending the Drug War, auditing the Federal Reserve, and most importantly following the Constitution and restoring our liberties, I'm sorry they are complete idiots.

If people disagree with Ron Pauls position on key issues, why would he be getting thunderous applause every time he gave them his view on those issues during the Iowa debate? There are many more debates to come, and we will see how the audience reacts to Ron Paul.

So if the MSM all covered Charlie Brown he would be our next President? While you bring up very good points but I believe this is nothing more that to attempt to push Pauls impending doom on everything other than the candidate himself.

I would argue that many of our current candidates are comparable to Charlie Brown.

reply to post by kro32

Your also forgetting that Paul has an advantage over the other canidates with the exception of Romney in that he's already run a full campaign just 4 years ago and his message hasn't changed.

I agree with you here, Ron Paul has been consistent in his views for his entire political career, hence his perfect voting record during his 30 years in Congress.

I doubt if you can find anyone that's going to vote that isn't more familiar with Paul already than they are with the other candidates. He doesn't need as much coverage as the other people to make his name familiar.

I have a challenge for you: Today, ask 10 random people if they know who Ron Paul is, and see if all 10 of them say Yes. Ask 10 more random people if they know who Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, or Mitt Romney is, and see if all 10 of them say Yes.

I would bet everything I own that people are on average more familiar with the candidates that the MSM pushes rather than with Ron Paul.

reply to post by TupacShakur


So your an advocate of the Fairness Doctrine, a peice of legislation Ron Paul strongly opposes by the way. You sound like the Hillary Clinton supporters who brought up the exact same issue.