Does Ron Paul deserve more coverage? (Washington Post)

Does Ron Paul deserve more coverage? (Washington Post)

www.washing tonpost.com

Has The Post given Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul short shrift in coverage? The ombudsman, like most mainstream media outlets, got hit with a wave of pro-Paul e-mails just after the Aug. 13 Iowa straw poll in which the Texas representative finished a few corn silk strands behind Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann. I received more e-mails after the most recent national Gallup Poll showed Paul ahead of Bachmann and third behind Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts governor Mitt

(visit the link for the full news article)

Hi ATS I thought you Ron Paul supporters would enjoy this article and use the opportunity to hit the comments section with thoughts of your own on the subject. By the WaPo own admission they have avoided giving Dr Paul coverage in favour of the more contraversial GOP candidates.

After reading some of Pauls work I can say that his radical medicine to fix the US is whats needed.

Judging by the comments on the article it seems that the average person needs to hear about it.

Clearly there is a huge disparity of coverage so here is your chance to get your candidates word out on a MSM outlet.




www.washing tonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Good time to up.

Ombudsman of major newspaper re: lack of Ron Paul coverage is important.

Of course he does, he has repeatedly proven that he is a top tier candidate and top tier candidates should receive equal coverage within their respective bracket.

Ron Paul does get a lot of coverage though, it is just that the media spins almost everything he says, the pundits (with the exception of a few unbiased/professionals) are always marginalizing him, and he gets B.S. questions in debates that have nothing to do with actual issues but are purposely thrown out to undermine him and his qualifications (proof as recent as last nights debate).