Example: media distorts reality subliminally - Ron Paul MSNBC poll results.

page: 6
36
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by pianopraze
 



There is no excuse for what they did. It is strait up manipulation. 99 percent of the people will think Romney got half the vote as they won't look at the numbers or stop to think about what they are seeing.


There is an excuse....they know that internet poll results will always be skewed in favor of Ron Paul.


Ron Paul was disqualified from a different internet poll after the debate because the website saw voting abnormalities with Ron Paul's votes.

It is no secret that Ron Paul supporters flood internet polls and vote over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over........


You couldn't vote over and over and over on that poll. Neither on the Fox News one.

Once you voted it said something like "Thank you but we have already counted in your vote."


You can, actually, if you know a small amount about the interwebs and web-browsers you can "robovote"...or vote as many times as you want. People do it all the time.
Not saying that is what happened here, but it happens a LOT.




posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by blamethegreys
Hey folks: I thought I'd work up a nice printable sheet you can use to show people how this manipulation stuff occurs right under their noses. Hope it helps wake someone up




Brilliant!

Compare the two charts, the manipulation is in your face obvious!

Thank You!



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

I don't know if you knew this but all reputable "printed" news sources also have the same news available on the internet. In fact there are quite a number of very reputable news sources are ONLY available on the internet.
Another point I would like to bring up is that printed books take approximately 5 years from inception to release to produce, meaning that the information within is also old and possibly out of date. The internet is up to the minute information and can provide news faster than print any day of the week. The real onus is on the reader to cross check the info from as many sources as possible to form their OWN unedited opinion. Please do not hate the internet it is the greatest library since Alexandria lets not burn this one down.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
MSNBC put up a poll last night after the debates. Ron Paul slaughtered the others according to the poll.


I examined at the poll for a long time thinking something was off, then I realized that the graph is skewed to make it subliminally look like Romney (and the others) received more votes than they did in reality in comparison to Ron Paul.

So I created this little illustration to show reality:


Another example of media subliminally distorting reality.


reality cannot be distorted, subliminally or otherwise, if one arms oneself with knowledge, engages in a healthy amount of critical thinking, and has some sense of history.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Yea I doubt this is anything other than bandwidth. and image size.

They put the numbers right there. If you're too lazy to read them that's your err.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
This may have been mentioned already, and I'm not quite sure how to double check my hypothesis. Could it have been a coding error rather than blatant disinformation? I notice the graph is not an image, it is a mixture of text and other elements. Would it be possible that the way the webpage was coded, the super long bar on the graph did not fit in the specified cell so the HTML just truncated the graphic? I don't necessarily intent to defend MSM, but thought it could be an possible reason...



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by IntegratedInstigator
This may have been mentioned already, and I'm not quite sure how to double check my hypothesis. Could it have been a coding error rather than blatant disinformation? I notice the graph is not an image, it is a mixture of text and other elements. Would it be possible that the way the webpage was coded, the super long bar on the graph did not fit in the specified cell so the HTML just truncated the graphic? I don't necessarily intent to defend MSM, but thought it could be an possible reason...



And yes it has been mentioned, and Davespanners made a nice spoof/joke reply on the first page.


Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Yea I doubt this is anything other than bandwidth. and image size.

They put the numbers right there. If you're too lazy to read them that's your err.


umm... no.

It's simple thing to show the graphic correctly in with space to spare as both I (in my OP) and blamethegreys have shown.

I guess your too lazy to read the op before responding...

This is blatant perception manipulation and there are lots of other examples throughout the thread. They have been caught, yet again, misrepresenting the truth. If it were isolated that would be one thing, this is systematic.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by lkpuede

reality cannot be distorted, subliminally or otherwise, if one arms oneself with knowledge, engages in a healthy amount of critical thinking, and has some sense of history.


And what percentage of the U.S. does this do you think?

Let's make a poll...



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I'm all for catching the MSM skewing Paul's results, but someone took apart the html of the page, and it was set to cut off at 300px, when the graph was supposed to stretch 600px. It was set up that way the whole time.

The only way it could be a purposeful misrepresentation, is if they knew from the beginning that Paul would win by a landslide. If it had been switched, and Perry was ahead, he would have been in the exact situation. They didn't change the coding midway through the polling. It would've happen to whoever was ahead.
edit on 10-9-2011 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   


And please please please don't get all your information from the internet...good lord.


The information you have shown is from the internet? isn't it?

You seem to be trying very hard to discredit Ron Paul,but it isn't working..



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 


So now they are incompetent as well as liars?

Color me skeptical on your info. They have been caught too many times misrepresenting Ron Paul.

You have provided them plausible deniability with this interesting "editing of the html code" but it comes with a huge raised eyebrow on my part.
edit on 10-9-2011 by pianopraze because: clarification



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
I'm all for catching the MSM skewing Paul's results, but someone took apart the html of the page, and it was set to cut off at 300px, when the graph was supposed to stretch 600px. It was set up that way the whole time.



Wow, such mental gymnastics all to justify what? Its clear that the graph is purposely skewed,
the lines of the graph being dis·pro·por·tion·ate/ˌdisprəˈpôrSHənit/


Adjective: Too large or too small in comparison with something else.


In comparison to the percentages.

And how ridiculous that we should think you have access to the html code on a page from MSNBC.
Unless of course your an admin there?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Paul is polling between 6% and 11%. These spam polls mean nothing. All they mean is that the Paul supporters have spammed another poll. They do it intentionally. They do it en masse, and the really strange thing is that some of them actually believe the polls after they have spammed them. And they get angry when they are called on their idiotic tactic. It's not MSNBC that is wrong here; it's YOU.

If you actually believe Paul is at 57%, then

* You * Are * Delusional. *

I see no real change between last election cycle and this one over how Paul supporters are handling themselves. Their actions, words, and deeds are giving the rest of us sufficient reason to NOT vote for Ron Paul. They are obnoxious, loud, rude, and a small minority.

My favorite Ron Paul statement in the debate: "They may be putting the fence up to keep us in! Have you thought of that?"

Yeah, I have. I can just picture hundreds of thousands of Americans running for the Mexican border to get over it for a safe and prosperous new life in that land of opportunity. Funniest thing I have ever heard Ron Paul say.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


This is not new at all. They do this sort of thing with graphs all the time, where focusing on one section of the graph, or misleading people by showing an oversized bar or line without telling you the ration or percentage has changed from the above/previous graph. I think this is hard to explain in words, but you know what I mean.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


That, or most Paul supporters know FOX is not the end-all, be-all and are willing to also watch the other corporate media stations as well, which means there is probably a larger amount of Paul supporters who watch MSNBC as compared with the toe-the-party-line Republicans who cannot fathom switching away from Bill Hemmer's seductive glare.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I have no idea where Ron Paul is. None of us do. The MSM are so deliberately and consistently lying and misrepresenting there is not way to tell.

My thread is not about how well Ron Paul is doing or not, there are plenty of threads on that.

My thread is pointing out some of the media manipulation I see occurring that I had not seen pointed out elsewhere.

And I find it interesting people accuse Ron Paul supporters of alternatively too being stupid to breath and then so smart they can figure out how to hack html code to "rig" or "break" or otherwise get around systems the MSM corporate websites (which are probably coded by some of the best paid if not best coders in the business) code to keep these polls from getting hacked...

Let's not forget ATS's poll showed Ron Paul winning with 83.2 percent of the vote. Yes it's a small, select demographic, but I trust ATS's poll over any of these other sites. Or do you assume every poll which shows Ron Paul winning by a high degree is hacked?
edit on 10-9-2011 by pianopraze because: fixed typo - typed 82%, it's 83.2%



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
So much sillyness going on here, Outkast searcher said that the excuse for this blatant manipulation is because supposedly the establishment media KNOWS other candidates aren't popular on the internet and make up for it by MANIPULATING graphs.

Uhhh...that isn't an excuse, it is a cop-out for corruption.

Outkast Searcher, as a Ron Paul supporter I actually look to scientific polls for a more accurate count on how RP is doing but you've already given yourself up as biased (very biased) and anti-Ron Paul by saying that ONLY scientific polls count despite the fact that they are released or conducted in part by the very establishment media brands that KNOWINGLY MANIPULATE polls and information to drive the direction of the election to somebody that will do things to make them happy vs somebody that refuses to. The media was no longer credible when it was proven that the manipulate, erase, and re-post polls when the results aren't favorable to them.

You've also lost your credibility saying that graph and poll manipulation is justified because polls are flooded and cheated. Well we know for a fact that the graphs and polls are manipulated but we don't know for a fact that people voted more than once. I for one only vote for polls once, I don't go out of my way and change my ip address just to vote twice, it is stupid and there is no absolute proof that this happens in every Ron Paul poll.

This thread is about the media distorting a particular poll, your only argument to it was because they know it will be off, this is their flaw, not the flaw of Ron Paul supporters.

You've showed your bias, you've made your points, why do you persist?
edit on 10-9-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by slowisfast
if he loses? bummer. the political machine wins again.


If Ron Paul loses the Republican primaries, it will be because the majority of Republican voters, most of whom are tea partiers, would've voted for somebody else. The "political machine" has nothing to do with it, people make the choices in the end.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
So now they are incompetent as well as liars?

Color me skeptical on your info. They have been caught too many times misrepresenting Ron Paul.

You have provided them plausible deniability with this interesting "editing of the html code" but it comes with a huge raised eyebrow on my part.

The poll was the same size the entire time. It has a cutoff point at 300pixels. Anyone that reached that edge, would have had the same problem, is all that I am saying. The graph keeps going, but it was compressed to that specific size.


Originally posted by burntheships
Wow, such mental gymnastics all to justify what? Its clear that the graph is purposely skewed,
the lines of the graph being dis·pro·por·tion·ate/ˌdisprəˈpôrSHənit/

Adjective: Too large or too small in comparison with something else.


In comparison to the percentages.

And how ridiculous that we should think you have access to the html code on a page from MSNBC.
Unless of course your an admin there?

Mental gymnastics to understand how an object works in html? You don't need to be a webmaster to read the html, or view source on things that you see in your browser. Your computer reads all of that information and broadcasts it to you, so you can also see what something is made up of.

Like I said, personally, I like busting websites that do things like this. I just don't think that this one was purposeful. If you double the graph over, from 300px to 600px, you'll be able to see that they left enough room for 100%, exactly, they just cut it down for space purposes.

If Perry won the poll at 57%, the same exact thing would have happen to him. The only way this was malice, is if the poll starters KNEW BEFOREHAND that Paul would win by a longshot (which I guess is possible)


300px doubled to 600px, leaves enough room for the full 100%



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 


Oh yeah?

How bout you copy and paste that html you can "see" here then as your proof?
Proof, or its just your opinion.





top topics
 
36
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join