Is the mainstream media biased against Ron Paul?

[MODU]

I'm surprised the political signs are going up already. I haven't seen any here.

I haven't seen any presidential signs yet, but I've seen tons of bumperstickers.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes. The mainstream media is just mind-bogglingly awful across the board.

Somehow, the mainstream media breaks the primary candidates into tiers. So, why isn't Ron Paul considered first-tier? Because Americans have never heard of him. Why have Americans never heard of him? Because the media ignores non first-tier candidates, and thus creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hmmm, you probably haven't driven on 494 lately. Because anyone who saw those overpass bridges the last time I did knows who he is (and that apparently he has some "Revolution"). And that's not the only bridges I've seen those signs on.

Paul is also the ONLY candidate I have yet to see lawn signs for.

I live in a very very liberal neighborhood (the joke is that the democrats hold their primary is the school gymnasium while the republicans use the attached closet), and I don't drive much. So, I haven't seen any lawn signs or overpass signs.

Hmmm, well the one sign I saw (which is still one more than any other candidate) was also in a very liberal (and rundown and poor) neighborhood. Whoever was renting that house couldn't be making more than $20,000 a year (or else he's VERY cheap)

[Michael Z]

the media is biased toward him for not exposing his ridiculous platform...

Peace, freedom and a belief in the constitution. Yes those are ridiculous ideas or at least they are to some Brits, which is why we kicked them the hell out of our country 200 years ago.

If you want socialism, tyranny and unending wars then Ron Paul is not your guy.

I am British and I hate freedom.

[MODU]

I am British and I hate freedom.

Quit being redundant. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes.

[ilikeverin]

Excerpt, "Current Events 2", ilikeverin's homework, AP United States Government and Politics:

1. Bibliography
Davis, Susan. "Ron Paul's Fund Raising Doubled in Quarter." Wall Street Journal 4 Oct. 2007. 8 Oct. 2007 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119146668063148662.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>.

...

3. Bias
Curiously, the Wall Street Journal shows a slant on Paul's candidacy.  The candidacy itself is described as "grass-roots", "second-tier" and an "insurgency", rather than adjectives I'd prefer to be used or ones that might be more neutral.  It is also described as "[continuing] to build steam", which might be a self-fulfilling prophecy because of the positive media attention this might receive.  Except for one reference to him as "Rep. Ron Paul", Paul is called as "Dr. Paul", a "licensed obstetrician", which, though indisputable, conceals the suspicion-inducing "Representative" title below the trusted, valued "Doctor".  Furthermore, the only quotes in the article come from Paul's campaign spokesman, with nary a word by a Paul foe.  This covertly subjective reporting is something that should be approached with a grain of salt.

Answer: No.  Internet polls represent the views of the libertarian echo chamber online, not actual opinion.  You Paul supporters can delude yourself all you want, but his message of hate will never gain traction in America.  I hope

[David S]

... but his message of hate will never gain traction in America.  I hope

Good grief!  Peace, freedom, and adherence to the constitution is Ron Paul's message. How in the world does that translate to hate?

[nlm]

I don't know that they are biased against Ron Paul. The MSM crafts story lines on things like election races in advance of the actual story, and then attempts to beat the facts into the story line they crafted. The story line on Ron Paul was to be that of an also ran. Once that becomes the story line in the MSM, it becomes very hard to change - as Ron Paul is finding out, like so many before him.

Also the MSM tends to focus on the horse race more than who the candidates are, what they have done, or what they say they will do. With their focus being that, the candidates that are "popular" or able to raise cash at the outset tend to get more attention, which in turns allows them to become more "popular" and raise more cash.

On top of that, the MSM knows where the lion's share of the money that these candidates raise will end up - and that is in their own pockets in the form of advertising dollars. The MSM has a vested interested in seeing tons of money in presidential races - which has got to be part of the reason they hype up fund raising so much and give the extra spot light to the candidates that raise money well. The MSM's coverage of political fund raising fuels political fund raising as much as anything. Candidates know they will get tons of press coverage for just raising money as opposed to effectively spending money. Just raising money for the sake of raising money has become one of the keys to getting press coverage.

With Ron Paul increasing his fund raising, he is getting some more attention. We will see if that continues.

[ilikeverin]

... but his message of hate will never gain traction in America.  I hope

Good grief!  Peace, freedom, and adherence to the constitution is Ron Paul's message. How in the world does that translate to hate?

Well, I was just deliberately using the most provocative word to provoke a response

But I'd start with his "America First" attitude, and continue from there.

[David S]

... but his message of hate will never gain traction in America.  I hope

Good grief!  Peace, freedom, and adherence to the constitution is Ron Paul's message. How in the world does that translate to hate?

Well, I was just deliberately using the most provocative word to provoke a response

Telling flagrant lies will usually provoke a response alright.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does your candidate put some other country first? Possibly he or she should run for president of that country.

But please elaborate on your point. Do you think Ron Paul is unfair to other countries? If so how? And please do "continue from there".

[RRB]

Ron Paul is an interesting guy, however, he does not believe in Social Security.  So there you have it, the .000000000001% of Americans who don't want Social Security in any form.

Therefore, Ron Paul as a presidential candidate is a non issue for anything more than entertainment.

I like "some" of the Libertarian platforms, but these extreme philosophies make them a joke in the face of reality. 

That's right, take a stand America.  Proudly cast your vote for someone who thinks that those of us who work hard in life will be cared for in old age by corporations.  I hardly think so.

[Reluctant Republican]

I just dug up a story about the CNBC debate from a week ago.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-silenced-at-cnbc-debate-transcript.html

Hope that's right. Anyway, the gist of what the guy did was he took the numbers of words each candidate spoke, and then added them up. As can be expected, the frontrunners spoke the most, but what I found suprising and what makes me think that the bias argument has some legs to it is that Paul was dead last in number of words spoken in the debate. Now, I’m not saying that he should be given equal time with the frontrunners. Statically they are ahead in the polls and I’m not a person that believes you should give someone at 20 percent and someone at 1 percent the same amount of time. But it seems to me that Paul, who usually polls 1 or 2 points higher then Brownback [while he was in the race.] or Tancredo and whose fundraising greatly outpaces theirs, should not have gotten the least amount of time in the debate. Hopefully Paul will be given a bit more time to speak on the Fox’s debate this Sunday, preferably more then at least Hunter and Tancredo.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not?

[Reluctant Republican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not?

Ideally I’m in favor of it, but when you have ten or even eight guys on a stage, it’s hard to distribute time equally , and I think that candidates who have shown to be polling and fundraising better should be “rewarded” more or less with more time to discuss the issues then the others. Of course, this brings up a “chicken or egg” argument where you have to wonder if the reason the frontrunners are frontrunners is because they are given the lion’s share of media coverage. But again, ideally I wish every debate would be like the ones that were on PBS, where every candidate was asked the same question and given a chance to respond. But if you want to cover more subjects in a debate, and get more substantive answers, you need to either focus on one specific issue to cover for the entire debate, or only allow a few candidates to answer any specific question, and most debates choose the latter option.

[David S]

Ron Paul is an interesting guy, however, he does not believe in Social Security.  So there you have it, the .000000000001% of Americans who don't want Social Security in any form.

Therefore, Ron Paul as a presidential candidate is a non issue for anything more than entertainment.

I like "some" of the Libertarian platforms, but these extreme philosophies make them a joke in the face of reality. 

That's right, take a stand America.  Proudly cast your vote for someone who thinks that those of us who work hard in life will be cared for in old age by corporations.  I hardly think so.

You have some bad information.

This is what Ron Paul really said:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/

Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.

Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending.

The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.

Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.

Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.

It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors.

[Brandon H]

The media would be biased against George Washington and Thomas Jefferson if they were around today.

People who want to hate Paul will come up with any excuse in the world to, and it won't necessarily be true.

Paul did help show that Fox has a NeoConservative bias rather than a Conservative one.

[David S]

Well Ron Paul won last night's debate with 34% of the vote in Fox News' text message poll. That makes three in a row for him even though he was off his game last night. He is also ahead in World Net Daily's poll today with 49% of the vote. That says a lot because WND is much more of a conserative site than a Libertarian one, so it isn't the best forum for Ron Paul.

[MODU]

Well Ron Paul won last night's debate with 34% of the vote in Fox News' text message poll. That makes three in a row for him even though he was off his game last night. He is also ahead in World Net Daily's poll today with 49% of the vote. That says a lot because WND is much more of a conserative site than a Libertarian one, so it isn't the best forum for Ron Paul.

What's more impressive about those silly text messaging polls is that Huckabee was only a few points behind Paul.

[SPC]

Yes. The mainstream media is just mind-bogglingly awful across the board.

Somehow, the mainstream media breaks the primary candidates into tiers. So, why isn't Ron Paul considered first-tier? Because Americans have never heard of him. Why have Americans never heard of him? Because the media ignores non first-tier candidates, and thus creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hmmm, you probably haven't driven on 494 lately. Because anyone who saw those overpass bridges the last time I did knows who he is (and that apparently he has some "Revolution"). And that's not the only bridges I've seen those signs on.

Paul is also the ONLY candidate I have yet to see lawn signs for.

Odd, because I have only seen three bumper stickers for presidential candidates: Romney, Obama, and Ron Paul.

In response to Brandon, I would have to say that George Washington or Thomas Jefferson serving another term as president in their current would be much better than any president in the last 80 years. Technically, the Constitution doesn't say that the President has to be alive.