It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CBS Reporter Blatantly Excludes Ron Paul From Coverage

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Communicationwillfreeus
 


Originally posted by Communicationwillfreeus
If someone heard this they would not even know RP was a candidate.


I doubt that... if they just crawled out from under a rock and saw JUST that graphic and NO other political election stories, then maybe they wouldn't know who Ron Paul is. You'd have to be in a coma not to know who Ron Paul is.

I just saw two graphics for polls today, One was missing Perry and Santorum. One was missing Huntsman and Perry. No one else threw a temper tantrum about it.

Ron Paul is actually very popular in the news this week.

reply to post by Wookiep
 


Originally posted by Wookiep
Exaggerate to make Paul supporters look bad much?


I'm going to step in here and ask you to read the responses in this thread over again with a tiny bit of a critical eye and see if you still think other people are necessary to "make Paul supporters look bad"... They are not. SOME of his supporters are making themselves look bad.


Originally posted by Wookiep
... I know what your agenda is, and it got old weeks ago.


Kind of like this story.

You guys are being highly-overly-sensitive about this issue. Every time someone comes out screaming about how the media treated Paul unfairly, HE looks weak. He's actually doing very well! He's positioned to become VERY popular over the next 6 months.




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
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?


Well I don't get my news from Infowars, but if they are totally biased then I'd say there is a problem.The question is, are you crying that I left out Infowars? Are you saying you wish they reported on Obama more? Most people don't get their news from Infowars and you know it.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
*double post*
edit on 9-1-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Tesclo
 


Congress was in recess according to the rules that allowed Obama to make that appointment. Really...this has been covered and Obama was well within his authority to do it.

It's true only Congress can declare war...but you don't need to declare war to engage in military actions. We never declared war on Libya...again...Obama was within his authority to do this.

Got anything else...because if not...that was pretty weak.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 


I'm saying I am fine with what organizations decide what to report on.

Not everyone is going to cover exactly what I would like to see...not everyone is going to cover what YOU think is important...and not everyone is going to treat everyone or every topic in a fair way.

Crying doesn't help. Just go find multiple news sources that you can tap into and get a general idea of what is going on.

Media is free to cover the race how they see fit...if they think Paul is a non-factor...they aren't required to cover him in the primary...and I would think that would be something that Ron Paul would be very supportive of.

Do you think Ron Paul would want his supporters crying in an attempt to force a private organization to do something???



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Wookiep
 


I'm saying I am fine with what organizations decide what to report on.

Not everyone is going to cover exactly what I would like to see...not everyone is going to cover what YOU think is important...and not everyone is going to treat everyone or every topic in a fair way.

Crying doesn't help. Just go find multiple news sources that you can tap into and get a general idea of what is going on.

Media is free to cover the race how they see fit...if they think Paul is a non-factor...they aren't required to cover him in the primary...and I would think that would be something that Ron Paul would be very supportive of.

Do you think Ron Paul would want his supporters crying in an attempt to force a private organization to do something???


You know I was on the virge of considering an actual intelligent convo with you, but as per your normal antics, I can tell that won't happen any time soon. Try having a conversation without shouting "RP supporters crying" sometime and maybe you'll be seen as a SMIDGE less biased.

I don't even know why I'm engaging in this convo with you anyway as we see this everyday from you. Keep defending the establishment and keep touting how the "privately owned media" (owned by corporations who pay the salaries of the MSM to provide us with our presidents) is fair and can say what they want even if it's false or unfair etc etc. I know where you stand on this, and it doesn't need to be repeated over and over. I disagree with you very strongly and that's it.
edit on 9-1-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 


Actually, I think the reason you're no longer willing to participate in the discussion is this:


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Do you think Ron Paul would want his supporters crying in an attempt to force a private organization to do something???


I think it's a good question. Do you REALLY know and have you thought about the consequences of a more free society? I don't think Ron Paul would be in favor of his supporters complaining about how a private organizations chooses to do business, saying how UNFAIR it is... Are you supporting the Fairness Doctrine now?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Seeing how the media is controlled by those corporations that are afraid of Ron Paul because he knows of their ties to the Federal Reserve makes the whole thing corrupt. I think most people here know it's corrupt, including you. What needs to happen is these people need to be exposed for what they are, (then subjected to due process) then we can go back to fair reporting.

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



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Seeing how the media is controlled by those corporations that are afraid of Ron Paul because he knows of their ties to the Federal Reserve makes the whole thing corrupt. I think most people know it's corrupt, including you. What needs to happen is these people need to be exposed for what they are, then we can go back to fair reporting.


And you still didn't answer the question.

Do you think Ron Paul would support forcing these organizations to talk about each candidate for the same amount of time, or include them in every poll they talk about, or force them to do ANYTHING at all???

BH has a good point...I don't think some of you have really thought out this "free society" thing.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


No, I don't think Ron Paul would support it, but he also knows who is behind it. I think he's come to expect it, that doesn't make false and corrupt reporting right either. I just told you what I think should happen, take it or leave it.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


[SNIP] It is silly to imply that if one News outlet is biased that it is okay for them all to be. It is silly to suggest that we should allow the MSM, to lie, misreport and be biased.

I honestly cannot believe that you are okay with being lied to every time you turn on any news show.

To imply that it's okay for the other news shows to be biased because of the way infowars reports their stories? Give me a break. How about leading by example!

It is not okay for any news media source to lie, spin, misreport or be biased. Period. Not any of them.

You sit here and ask why they are not pointing out bias from infowars?[SNIP]

People on ATS are pointing out bias and lies as they come. No matter the source. I promise you can find threads and posts here about bias and lies from infowars, so cut that crap out.

You will see people pointing out that all news media is biased and that they tell lies, so quit trying to goad people to say what is parroted through out ATS on a daily basis.

The fact is, that you being okay with even a single news outlet, lying or being bias, makes you part of the problem. It makes you complacent. Don't complain about ANY news source being biased ( Not even infowars) if you are going to state that you are fine with them all being biased.

You want to just give up and watch the lies and see if you can get lucky enough to pick out a grain of truth? be my guest. I am going to join those people who wish to actually brink back Journalistic integrity. Who wish to call the MSM out on all their lies ( Not just the news channels we don't like... ALL OF THEM)

You watch your lies. We will try to actually do something about the lies. All of them, from every news outlet, regardless of lie or bias.

You just sit there and watch your lies and yell at us for calling them all out on their lies.

But to come in this thread and give people a hard time for not screaming the usual " ALL MSM is bad" line? [SNIP]. People are calling them out, one lie at a time. At least they are doing something.... Which apparently is more than you can say.

Good day.


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






posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


Do you think Ron Paul would want his supporters crying in an attempt to force a private organization to do something???


Gee, I don't know. Why don't we ask him rather than just giving up and having the MSM tell us what to think?


Do you really think Ron Paul is in favor of lies or bias? I don't. Let's find out. Go as Ron Paul your question.


Then we will know for sure.


I find that you being okay with lies and bias from ANY source is disgusting. It is not okay for them all to do it just because one does.

It is NOT okay for ANY source. Period. and I refuse to just sit there and take it. I will join the crowd of people who point out the lies as they come.

Look up Journalistic Integrity. It died. Complacency and laziness killed it. Excuse us while we try to resurrect it.

I am truly sorry that you apparently do not like that people do this, but you are pretty much alone in your being okay with the lies told by the MSM.

Truly sorry that it bothers you when people call out the lies as they come, but we are going to keep doing it. Regardless of news source. Regardless of lie, people like me are going to keep working to stop the lies.

peace and love.
edit on 9-1-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

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.

You should stick to driving your mini-van and getting capri sun, nobody is asking for Ron Paul 24-7, way to blatantly misinterpret the point and manipulate it into something entirely different.

Bravo, you must have been a politician in a past life



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


What is ridiculous about stating reality???

I know the media lies...you know it...so why cry about it? It's reality...accept it. You can say you and others are out there doing something about it...but what are they doing??? They are sourcing one media outlet to prove that another media outlet lies...all the while ignoring that their source lies as well...but they agree with them THIS time so they are telling the truth.


I fully admitted that all have their agenda, all of them lie, and all of them distort and are biased.

Some on ATS think the "MSM" is evil and the only place for truth is places like Infowars. Some on ATS think that infowars is fulll of it and you are better off going with the MSM. I think they all have their own agenda and report based off that agenda.

My questions to those using infowars as a source is relevant because they are fine using that media while crying about another. They don't care that infowars has their own agenda and is a cheerleader for Ron Paul...but they cry about other outlets backing other candidates.

They are hypocrites...I'm sorry you don't like me pointing that out.

I call out lies when I see them...there is no "lie" in the topic of the OP...just an organizations preference on what to report on. Now if they would of stated "Ron Paul is not in the NH primary"...that is a lie...choosing not to discuss him is their right.

If you really think stating reality is ridiculous...oh well...have fun in your fantasy world.
edit on 9-1-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
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.



Am I to answer to you..? (I feel like my dad just butted in and restated the long version of a side note in my message) No. I did not think that. I just expressed this thought in one sentence instead of an entire paragraph with aggressive undertones in it's opening.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

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???


Infowars is not on national TV being broadcast to every home in the country at the same time every night of the week and being promoted as "News". Alex Jones may be a sensationalist, but at least you know that going in. He is not claiming to be some unbiased news source simply reporting the facts. To even compare Infowars to CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or even FOX is really grasping for straws and this argument is laughable.

Fact is, the man is running for President. The man is polling very well. The man has been in the top 3-4 since day one. The "unelectable" argument is out the window and no longer holds water. No one claimed McCain was "unelectable" when he took 4th in Iowa 4 years ago. No one claimed Huckabee was "unelectable" when he was polling in second place in Iowa with 18.1% of the vote then went on to win Iowa. Paul is polling at over 20%, that is higher than what these other examples polled at, so calling him "unelectable" is seriously denying all reality. Obviously someone is supporting him.
edit on 9-1-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
*** MOD NOTE***

The personal attacks and insults will stop immediately.
We REQUIRE all members to treat each other with courtesy and respect.
Failure to do so may result in a loss of posting privileges.

Don't let the divide and conquer tactics of some find a place here among our membership.
When you joined ATS you agreed to a higher standard.

Thank you for your attention,
Asktheanimals



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Case in point: I just watched the NBC evening news. The NH political coverage lasted nearly 10min and during that time Ron Pual was not mentioned once nor was his image (other than in a shot focused on Romney) shown even once. They showed every other candidate and talked about what Huntsman, Santorum and Gingrich were doing to try and catch Romney. They even showed Perry clips. He's got what, 1%?? No conspiracy here.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join