 |
  Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 • |
       |
| Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave |
Post-debate ping
Posted on 09/05/2007 8:22:29 PM PDT by rface
(FReeper thread from earlier today: Ron Paul Will Win Debate But Be Discredited)
[FOX News just declaired Ron Paul the winner in tonights debate....but Ron Paul's win has been discredited by Hannity]
Now to the article......:
Washington D.C.:
An analyst at USAElectionPolls.com has recently published the frequency the top news sources mention each of the Republican candidates. As expected, the top tiered candidates were mentioned most often but by how much varied.
Their analysis found that the New York Times, USA Today, and CBS News were the fairest of all the news sources analyzed. The biggest "culprit" according to the web site was Fox News -- mentioning the Top 3 candidates almost five times as frequent as all the other candidates combined.
There were 13,000 references to Mitt Romney, 6,570 references to Rudy Giuliani, and 4,060 references to John McCain on the Fox News domain according to the Google searches that USAElectionPolls.com performed. Ron Paul was referenced the least of all candidates - 248 times.
The results suggest that Fox News mentions Mitt Romney in articles more than 50 times as frequent as they do Ron Paul. USAElectionPolls.com calls it "absurd" and continues on to say that in "no other news source is the disparity as large as it is on Fox News".
For the full article go to: http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-silenced-by-fox-news.html
Don’t worry...the far-left crazies over at HuffingtonPost loved Congressman Ron Paul: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-neffinger-glynnis-macnicol-and-rachel-sklar/liveblog-foxnews-gop-deb_b_63235.html
When I watched him last night I thought he was very entertaining. All he was lacking was a propeller beanie, made of tin foil
I’m glad to know that you’re an ally in our struggle against global balonists. :)
You must not listen to his show with an attentive ear....
If you are still a Paul supporter after last night then you must not have watched the debates.
|
Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 • |
|
| Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave |
Yikes, I actually have to bump your post. Strange times.
bttt!
A Gravel vs. Paul debate would cool.
Right now Paul's only purpose is to be a pinanta. whoever whack the pinanta has the best night. Rudy in SC. Huckabee last night. Mitt the time before.
I'm sick of the establishment saying "Down with Ron Paul!" out of one side of their mouth, and "Who's Ron Paul?" out the other.
If he's really a nobody with no chance of winning, why are so many people spending so much time trying to shoot him down?
Of course he's no more a victim than any other candidate, and of course every candidate is a target for all tricks clean and dirty...so, all's fair in love an politics.
See you at the polls. =]
I might disagree with you on this one. I think Ron Paul actually brought more media coverage. I don’t think the Texas Straw Poll would have gotten the attention it did without his activist supporters. I also think his, ummm, colorful interaction during the debate last night brought more attention to fox away from the Jay Leno Show.
I enjoyed watching the debate, with the exception of Carl Cameron and his ridiculous bit in that cafe where he made an effort to 1) be as goofy and irreverent as possible and 2) get the least articulate people in the state to ask the media-preferred candidates the most banal questions possible on issues where their opinions were already completely known. A close second was the other commentator (forgot his name) who interviewed the McCain cheerleaders’ convention in that other restaurant after the debate.
One question: do you happen to know who was permitted to attend the debate? Was it all UNH students, local Republicans, or what? I found the crowd’s response to certain candidates’ answers interesting and I’m curious as to the demographics of those there.
Having read some of what Fox News is writing about Romney, I think Romney would be happy to give up some of that attention to Ron Paul.
In other news, Ron Cox isn’t mentioned as often as Ron Paul. And this report didn’t even notice he was a candidate, so I think the report is biased.
On a more serious note, in their information, they show Romney at 13,000 to Ron Paul’s 248, and say that’s the worst case of bias.
But look at the New York Times numbers:
Ron paul is mentioned 21,700 times, McCain only 15,500 times, and Hunter only 535 times. And Romney? It must be a typo, their chart says Romney only had 87 mentions.
The more liberal the news source, the more often Ron Paul is mentioned compared to the other candidates.
Lastly, they had the strange notion that all the bottom-tier candidates should, in aggregate, be mentioned as often as all the top-tiered candidates.
That is stupid, if they were mentioned as much, they wouldn’t be bottom-tiered candidates.
It speaks to the bias of the New York Times that they talked more about the candidates who have no chance of winning than they did about our serious candidates who could win.
Of course, what I’d really like to see is a comparison for each of these sources between mentions of ANY republican candidate vs ANY democratic candidate. Want to bet the LA times has mentioned democrat presidential candidates a LOT more than the 1700 or so times they mentioned republicans?
Think about that. the LA times TOTAL mention of republican candidates has been about 2000, while USA today has mentioned them about 7 times as much, or 14,000 times.
I like to ridicule Paul for his war positions, but I do generally agree with you that he’s right more often than any democrat would be.
And I certainly don’t think anybody wants to purge Paul supporters, they aren’t nearly as obnoxious and overbearing as some of the Rudy Guiliani supporters became.
And I don’t think too many of them are trying to compare their candidate to Ronald Reagan.
For me it wasn’t just his opposition to the Iraq war, because while I disagreed it was a principled non-interventionist position and he was consistant.
It’s his recent pronouncements about our culpability for 9/11, which while milder than some make out, are just too much for me to bear, especially seeing how much those comments are embraced by the nuts on the left.
You think Huckabee 'whacked' Ron Paul last night. Right. And St. Rudy (all hallowed be his name) 'whacked' him before. If not reading the documents your own government distributes and comparing foreign policy to visiting the store with Mommy is all you've got, that's a rather sad assessment of 'conservatism' today. The truth won out over Rudy and Huckabee just stammered along with platitudes of doing the 'honorable' thing. Both of their responses to Dr. Paul's arguments were pitiful at best
This circular argument is exactly what I don't like about the current primary process. Candidates are declared to be "second-tier" because they aren't brought up much in the media, and then the media ignores them because they're "second-tier"! It becomes a preposterous situation where Republicans allow the mainstream media to decide who in their party is "electable".
Take Duncan Hunter as an example. Almost everyone on FR supports him, or would support him if not for the fact that he's not widely considered "electable". But that's not because his ideas are worse than Rudy's or McCain's. It's because the media pimps Rudy and McCain, so the people who don't pay much attention to anything but sound bites think Rudy or McCain are their Republican choices, so in the polls the people who haven't heard any other names pick someone like that. The media takes that as their cue to continue to ignore the other candidates whose politics would be more aligned with their base, but who get ignored, get low poll numbers because of it, and continue to get ignored based on those poll numbers.
Whether you love or hate Ron Paul, his supporters' strategy of coming out in force to win various online and real-life polls (a strategy borrowed from Freepers, BTW) is a smart one. It becomes increasingly hard to ignore the so-called "second tier" when one such candidate keeps winning the media's own polls. The media has resorted to deriding their own polls; they may very well be correct that their polls are being "freeped" by Ron Paul supporters, but in doing so they make their own bias so obvious that hopefully people will start to judge candidates by their ideas rather than by who the media tells them is the most popular.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.