CBS Reporter Blatantly Excludes Ron Paul From Coverage

CBS does it again! If you remember, these are the same people that held Paul to 89 seconds in their previous "debate". Now, CBS reporter, Jan Crawford, excludes Paul even though Paul is polling a high second in New Hampshire.

Jan Crawford, CBS Reporter, Slammed for Excluding Ron Paul

CBS Reporter Blatantly Excludes Ron Paul From Coverage

I haven't been able to find the original video as I believe it was taken down. If you can find it, please post it. If not, I'll attempt to update this post with it.

Facebook comments include:

“Your lack of integrity as a journalist is no longer in question, it is fact.”
“Blatant manipulation of data to fabricate a news story instead of doing your job to report it disgusts me. Thank you, Jan Crawford, You make me feel like a better person,”

Update: Found video

Haha it even goes on to mention people who dropped out of the race over Paul !

Thanks for that. Will leave a message on her Facebook wall. Already see a long list of people disgusted by this decision.

reply to post by Tesclo


Are you serious? If someone heard this they would not even know RP was a candidate.

Maybe if enough people boycott her coverage then she will be fired. The only problem is, she is following orders as will the next puppet. I hope Ronnie blows them out of the water.
43%+9%+7%+6%= 65%, wouldn't that leave Ron with 45% because the other lady bowed out. If Ron had 45% wouldn't he be the front runner? Something is blatantly wrong with this picture, BOYCOTT CBS! If no one watches their channel then they are useless and powerless.

Originally posted by Communicationwillfreeus
reply to post by Tesclo

 

Are you serious? If someone heard this they would not even know RP was a candidate.

That's right. It's been going on for as long as Ron Paul has been running for president. All the RP haters and Obama lovers justify it though because they don't like him, so that makes it suddenly fair.

I guess it's totally ok to have unfair biased reporting, resulting in a totally skewed and rigged election process. Que all the haters talking about how fair the media is, and how un-electable Ron Paul is.

Originally posted by Communicationwillfreeus
reply to post by Tesclo

 

Are you serious? If someone heard this they would not even know RP was a candidate.

Maybe if enough people boycott her coverage then she will be fired. The only problem is, she is following orders as will the next puppet. I hope Ronnie blows them out of the water.
43%+9%+7%+6%= 65%, wouldn't that leave Ron with 45% because the other lady bowed out. If Ron had 45% wouldn't he be the front runner? Something is blatantly wrong with this picture, BOYCOTT CBS! If no one watches their channel then they are useless and powerless.

edit on 9-1-2012 by Communicationwillfreeus because: added tally counts of %

edit on 9-1-2012 by Communicationwillfreeus because: (no reason given)

The independent and undecided voters make up a large percentage. There is a poll out with Paul tied with Romney, but most show him 10-25 points below him. I still think we're going to see an Iowa here. Someone will magically come out of no where and put Paul in 3rd. It's all a joke and a fraud.

reply to post by Communicationwillfreeus


You don't actually think that the reporter made this call on her own do you? The decision to omit Dr. Paul from coverage is being made at the very top of the MSM empires. If you can stomach it just go watch a little FOX 'News' political coverage. Their agendas are entirely transparent to us but the demographics that only know the world through their MSM-of-choice are being led around on a leash. And it works. Look at the Romney exit poll demographics. Over 50% of his votes came from the 55yo+ cohorts --- which are exactly the demographics of the MSM 'news' outlets. Say something enough and it must be true.

Infowars is (as usual) a week late and a dollar short.

This report was made the day after the Iowa caucus, if you'll notice. The stats are those prior to the first debate, in fact. In their frantic efforts to find out why Ron isn't appealing to 80% of the voters, they're hopping on every instance where they think he's ignored -- even if it's last week's news.

The news channels are not obligated to do "all Paul 24-7" nor are they obligated to recite the names of every single candidate in every single story. If memory serves, Ron had not made it to NH then (the others hotfooted it to NH the second the caucus was over.)

Other politicians are doing interesting things and voters who aren't favoring Ron Paul really don't want 24-7 coverage of him. They'd like to hear about their own candidates. If you google for news stories (not op ed, not blogs) on Ron, you'll find he's getting a lot more coverage than Huntsman and several others.

Id say she just went on someones, who gets it when the SHTF list, along with the rest of the scumbags

That's terrible, but shes not the only reporter to just leave him out. It's just the MSM trying to give him the least amount of coverage as possible, so that the candidate they want to be elected gets the spot light. They're scared.

reply to post by Indellkoffer


I don't think anyone is suggesting that a 'news' organization should be 'All Paul 24/7'. But they are clearly going WAY out of their way to repeatedly ignore and marginalize him despite the fact that he is consistantly polling 2nd-3rd place. Gingrich gets more coverage and he has fallen like a rock. If you can't see the media bias here you're blind.

The Occupy movement had been going for over 3wks before the MSM decided to cover that. But they couldn't get protest footage from anywhere overseas on the air fast enough.

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Infowars is (as usual) a week late and a dollar short.

This report was made the day after the Iowa caucus, if you'll notice. The stats are those prior to the first debate, in fact. In their frantic efforts to find out why Ron isn't appealing to 80% of the voters, they're hopping on every instance where they think he's ignored -- even if it's last week's news.

The news channels are not obligated to do "all Paul 24-7" nor are they obligated to recite the names of every single candidate in every single story. If memory serves, Ron had not made it to NH then (the others hotfooted it to NH the second the caucus was over.)

Other politicians are doing interesting things and voters who aren't favoring Ron Paul really don't want 24-7 coverage of him. They'd like to hear about their own candidates. If you google for news stories (not op ed, not blogs) on Ron, you'll find he's getting a lot more coverage than Huntsman and several others.

Go ahead and keep ranting on about...whatever you're ranting about. No-one is asking for 24-7 coverage of Ron Paul, just fair coverage. Exaggerate to make Paul supporters look bad much? It's totally ok with you that one of the candidates wasn't_even_mentioned? Is that the way our media is to conduct themselves during an election? Do you like manipulated and skewed elections? Did you watch the video? Where have you been since this election started, are you telling me this DOESN'T happen to Ron Paul on almost a daily basis? Deny ignorance much?

reply to post by jtma508


The news is still a week old. It's not as though on the eve of the race, she's suddenly neglecting to mention him. I just googled his name and found (in NEWS alone) About 23,500 stories on him, including a Texas Tribune piece, Fox News, Time, etc, etc.

reply to post by Wookiep


This isn't an "election"...this is a primary.

It is Party business...not US government business.

Everyone has agendas...I bet infowars gives more press and more positive press to Ron Paul than any other candidate...are you crying over them being unfair too???

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Wookiep

 

This isn't an "election"...this is a primary.

It is Party business...not US government business.

Everyone has agendas...I bet infowars gives more press and more positive press to Ron Paul than any other candidate...are you crying over them being unfair too???

It's the GOP primaries that effect the overall election process, don't get snarky because I know what your agenda is, and it got old weeks ago.

Infowars isn't the MSM and infowars doesn't effect who our president is as their readers are already as informed as they're gonna be. If you can't use common sense and realize the BS the media is doing then I can't say much more to you. You're making this about the candidate when you should be concerned about how our leaders are being hand picked by the media. You'll never know though and you'll continue with your biased views because the media won't ever do this to your precious Obama.

reply to post by Wookiep


Oh right...because Obama gets such a fair shake on Fox News...the number one news station in America.

I recognize it...I accept it...I move on.

Like I said...they all have their agenda...you can't dictate what their agenda should be and you can't tell them what to report on or not. Government doesn't have control of the media...the media has rights and freedoms to do whatever they want. It is up to INDIVIDUALS to determine if they are telling the truth or not...geee...that sounds a lot like something Ron Paul would support.

Inforwars may not be "mainstream" media...but it is media none the less. And they have a clear agenda regarding Ron Paul. You kind of look like a hypocrite if you don't fault them for doing the exact same thing that they are crying about in that article.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Oh right...because Obama gets such a fair shake on Fox News...the number one news station in America.

Sure, he's got Fox news against him. What about all the other networks, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS? Those are four other major players you seemed to have forgotten about. What about all the major billion dollar corporations he has backing him? Gee that's weird, I wonder who owns the media? Go ahead though and keep spouting your nonsense, very few people, if any here are buying it, thankfully.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Wookiep

 

Oh right...because Obama gets such a fair shake on Fox News...the number one news station in America.

I recognize it...I accept it...I move on.

Like I said...they all have their agenda...you can't dictate what their agenda should be and you can't tell them what to report on or not. Government doesn't have control of the media...the media has rights and freedoms to do whatever they want. It is up to INDIVIDUALS to determine if they are telling the truth or not...geee...that sounds a lot like something Ron Paul would support.

Inforwars may not be "mainstream" media...but it is media none the less. And they have a clear agenda regarding Ron Paul. You kind of look like a hypocrite if you don't fault them for doing the exact same thing that they are crying about in that article.

I don't want to hear about Obama. For as much illegal and unconstitutional crap he's pulled, including the most recent powergrab, the man should have been impeached years ago. Morons cheering for him while he's basically telling them he doesn't need congress and he wants to be a dictator. "Should I act without congress". If any President ever deserved to be impeached it's Obama. And why hasn't he been? Why? Because it's a game to these people. There aren't two parties. It's like WWF they all act like they hate each other and then end up at dinner joking after the show. But people can't wake up to the fact that it's a show. Like 1st graders that believe in Santa. It's a joke. Cheering for acting without congress. Mindless sheep.

reply to post by Wookiep


And I see you have left out Infowars...are you upset with them showing bias for Ron Paul???

Fair is fair...right?

reply to post by Tesclo


I would love for you to show where he has committed an impeachable offense.

His recent recess appointments were well within his rights. Do you know how many recess appointments other Presidents have made compared to Obama???

I would give you the number...but I think self discovery is a much more enlightening approach.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Tesclo

 

I would love for you to show where he has committed an impeachable offense.

His recent recess appointments were well within his rights. Do you know how many recess appointments other Presidents have made compared to Obama???

I would give you the number...but I think self discovery is a much more enlightening approach.

Yes but see the problem is congress was actually... get this.... IN RECESS! God help me.
Let's talk about Libya. Obama doesn't need to go to congress because they just make up their own definition of war. So that makes it okay. Dropping bombs on another nation isn't war. ONLY BOOTS ON THE GROUND!

Seriously. Take the blinders off. Do you cheer like the rest of the sheep when he makes a speech about acting without congress? Doing whatever he wants? Sending the wife and kids on million dollar vacations?

God help us.