no media bias against ron paul?

[freddyv]

to those that think there is no media bias against ron paul, I checked the major media outlet's online pages (foxnews, cnn, msnbc, etc.) and not a one makes mention of ron paul's record setting day of fundraising. I don't know what the final tally was, but I believe that it was in the neighborhood of $6 MM, which would eclipse the single-day record set by john kerry.

the same exact thing happened after the november 5th money bomb. ron paul has now raised over $18 MM in the 4th quarter alone. again, I don't know exact figures but that should put him head and shoulders above the majority of the candidates for either party.

[freddyv]

Paul supporters hold Tea Party re-enactment in Boston
12/17/2007, 7:07 a.m. ET
The Associated Press


BOSTON (AP) — Supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul marched from the Statehouse to Faneuil Hall and staged a reenactment of the Boston Tea Party during a fundraising effort for the Texas congressman.

Called a "Money Bomb," the goal was to raise as much money as possible on the Internet in one day. The campaign's previous fundraiser brought in $4.2 million.

At midnight EST, donations were over $6 million, according to the campaign Web site. Those donations are processed credit card receipts, said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton.

The events in Boston Sunday marked the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, when colonists boarded a British ship and dumped more than 300 chests of tea overboard to protest tea taxes.

Paul, a libertarian, trails in the polls but has attracted an enthusiastic cadre of supporters. He is the only GOP candidate to call for a prompt troop withdrawal from Iraq.

[Mickulz]

freddyv said:

to those that think there is no media bias against ron paul, I checked the major media outlet's online pages (foxnews, cnn, msnbc, etc.) and not a one makes mention of ron paul's record setting day of fundraising.

Dude, every single one of those sites mention it on their front page.

CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews.com, all have it right there.

[freddyv]

it's good to see that they all eventually added the story. if you'll check the time stamp of my original post, they were not running the story as of 8 am this morning.

I still maintain that there is a media bias against ron paul. I feel that the media doesn't provide much coverage to his story as his message and the success of his candidacy do not serve the interests of the major media corporations. I also have a hard time believing that he is at 4.5% in the polls for the republican nomination as the media is reporting given the amount of money he's been able to raise and the amount of ron paul signs I see as I drive around, not to mention all of the straw polls that he wins.

if hillary or barack raised almost $11 MM online in two days without any effort on the part of themselves or their campaign I think it would be top story first thing in the morning everywhere. every day I check the news and it's hillary this, barack that, rudy this, huckabee that. I'm just not feeling a real sense of balance in coverage.

[freddyv]

Dude, every single one of those sites mention it on their front page.

CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews.com, all have it right there.

p.s. - I just checked those three pages at 11:23 am...not on cnn's front page...not on msnbc's front page...it did make foxnews' front page...if you scroll WAY down to the bottom.

[Mickulz]

That is because those companies do not update non-breaking news until 9 am.

There are about 8 candidates that are getting less coverage than Paul.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

That is because those companies do not update non-breaking news until 9 am.

There are about 8 candidates that are getting less coverage than Paul.

that may be so, but those 8 candidates are not raising the kind of money that ron paul is, and obviously do not have the support that he does. can you deny over $18 MM in one quarter? furthermore, most of that money is coming in without any effort on the campaign's part.

if there is no bias, explain to me why the story is already gone from the sites I mentioned. over $6 MM raised online in one day is a big deal, and in my opinion would be a top story if you insert one of the media darlings' names instead of ron paul's. I mean come on...it beat john kerry's record!

[freddyv]

the top story on foxnews right now is an internet rumor that obama is muslim. is that really more newsworthy?

[freddyv]

Ron Paul Raises $6 Million in One Day (12/17/07)
Candidate has most successful fundraising day in American political history

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign had a record fundraising day yesterday.

In a 24-hour period on December 16, the campaign raised $6 million dollars, surpassing the one-day record of $5.7 million held by John Kerry.

During the day, over 58,000 people contributed to Dr. Paul’s campaign, including 24,940 first-time donors. Over 118,000 Americans have donated to the campaign in the fourth quarter.

The $6 million one day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its initial fourth quarter goal of $12 million.

"The outpouring of support shows what a powerful message freedom is," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Americans are tired of the same old Washington, and they are rallying around Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, peace and prosperity."

Congressman Paul will be campaigning in Iowa today and will be holding a press conference at 12:45 pm at the Des Moines Marriott in the Des Moines Room. Members of the press are strongly encouraged to attend.

[Mickulz]

To me, yes it is more news worthy than what Ron Paul made this weekend. However, the Bush statement of vetoing any tax increase, or the "dead" boy found alive is more newsworthy, to me, than any of the above.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

To me, yes it is more news worthy than what Ron Paul made this weekend. However, the Bush statement of vetoing any tax increase, or the "dead" boy found alive is more newsworthy, to me, than any of the above.

the obama story is pure sensationalism. last I checked, freedom of religion is one of our inalienable rights. who cares.

the bush statement is obviously very newsworthy. you didn't answer my question though...why was the ron paul story gone only an hour after it showed up? the story on googling oneself and the dad who sold his kid's video game when he caught him smoking pot are more important? give me a break!

[Mickulz]

It is called dynamic news. Look at the site now. It is "how much can we jam in one day". The Obama story is off the front page now too.

Freedom of religion is an inalienable right, but does that not mean we can not discuss it?

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

It is called dynamic news. Look at the site now. It is "how much can we jam in one day". The Obama story is off the front page now too.

Freedom of religion is an inalienable right, but does that not mean we can not discuss it?

the obama story is still on the front page under latest news, as is the video game story. the google yourself story, however, is gone. to me this shows a hierarchy as the obama story didn't go away. still think it's a case of "dynamic news?"

we can discuss his religion all we want, that doesn't make it relevent, newsworthy, or an important story.

[Mickulz]

So what makes a story "newsworthy"?

And yes, I do think it is dynamic news, you know why? The link probably got the most hit. The server then ranks the hits and keeps the top story on the main pages. How do I know this? Because I installed the servers that ran all the ads and commercials for the Discovery Channel (in Baltimore service hub) and that is how the packages work (as do most tv and news sites).

advertisers pay for spots on pages, so the pages that get the most visits stay visible. Just because it involves Ron Paul, does not make it a conspiracy.

If you polled 50 people int he street right now and asked them "Which would you like to know about: The internet rumor that Obama is Muslim, or Ron Paul Raised The Most Money In One Day". I would venture to bet that 80% would care more about the first story.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

So what makes a story "newsworthy"?

If you polled 50 people int he street right now and asked them "Which would you like to know about: The internet rumor that Obama is Muslim, or Ron Paul Raised The Most Money In One Day". I would venture to bet that 80% would care more about the first story.

if you polled the same people and asked instead would you rather read about britney's latest fiasco or a story on why the US dollar is floundering, 80% would probably want to hear about britney. it has nothing to do with which is more important, it's the same reason why tabloids sell and tmz gets tons of hits.

this is getting completely off-topic. I think the facts speak for themselves, and it is not at all far-fetched that billion dollar corporations would want to suppress this type of information as it is not in their "best interests" to fully disseminate it. I haven't read anything in this thread to refute that. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories because I have no interest in them.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

And yes, I do think it is dynamic news, you know why? The link probably got the most hit. The server then ranks the hits and keeps the top story on the main pages. How do I know this? Because I installed the servers that ran all the ads and commercials for the Discovery Channel (in Baltimore service hub) and that is how the packages work (as do most tv and news sites).

foxnews has a "latest news" tab and a "most read" tab. I often times check both and if it were 100% a case of dynamic news, the two lists would be identical according to your theory. it's not, and they, in my experience, are never the same.

[JeffD5Buddy]

The reason the story didn't get much attention is due to the fact Ron Paul is last or second to last in every poll. The fact that he raises a lot of money is good for him but isn't affecting polls.... so people would be more interested in an Obama story (he's a front runner) over a Ron Paul story based on the number of supporters. Gotta go with what the masses want, not the select few.

[Mickulz]

That is not actually true either. For example:

Discivery had a formula for their "new" information, that involved WHAT information was being replaced. This would make sure that not one area is effected. A better example is if there was a crash with 100 cars, you would see it on the latest news. If new articles spinning from that accident kept coming out, not all of them would populate the "latest news" section, or the latest news would all be about that once accident. My guess would be the news sites use a 30% entertainment, 20% political, 10% sports, etc..so that the "latest" news is varied.

As for the most read, you must also remember that with RSS feeds and other sites pulling news, that most of the hits may not be coming from the sites itself. They may just be pulling read hit from their servers alone, and not any mirror sites.

Also, most people only read the headlines and not the full articles.

And you still did not answer my questions on what makes something "newsworthy"?

[Mickulz]

But you are are assuming that a person is sitting there and looking at what story goes where. It is almost all automated. The writer publishes it, and it goes on. It may get bumped and it may not.

The fact is 118,000 people have donated to Ron Paul. That is about what 3% of the US population. Add in a few more for political "junkies" and you have 7% care what he raised.

It is just not a story that people care about it. I just do not see what more you want (other than it front page all day).

Btw. Story was posted on CCN and MSNBC at 9:00. I checked the minute I saw your post.

[freddyv]

jeffd5buddy said:

The reason the story didn't get much attention is due to the fact Ron Paul is last or second to last in every poll. The fact that he raises a lot of money is good for him but isn't affecting polls.... so people would be more interested in an Obama story (he's a front runner) over a Ron Paul story based on the number of supporters. Gotta go with what the masses want, not the select few.

you are speaking to my point exactly. the media is either under-reporting or mis-reporting ron paul's numbers. 118,000 different people donated for ron paul in the 4th quarter alone. the average donation during the last money bomb was $50. it's not like a few very weathly people are donating a bunch of money. over $18 MM in one quarter is a lot of money!

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

It is just not a story that people care about it. I just do not see what more you want (other than it front page all day).

I would expect that the story would be there for more than an hour, and I would expect that you wouldn't have to scroll down to the very bottom of the page to find it. he set a record. it's a big deal.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

The fact is 118,000 people have donated to Ron Paul. That is about what 3% of the US population. Add in a few more for political "junkies" and you have 7% care what he raised.

why do they feature any of these people? because they have a lot of supporters, and they generate a lot of money. that is why you find the most news on hillary, barack, rudy, huckabee, and romney. money talks, and when someone raises money that is on par with the heavy hitters, I would expect that that individual would get the same treatment. nothing more, nothing less.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

And you still did not answer my questions on what makes something "newsworthy"?

apparently it's a subjective thing. I wouldn't think that the majority of what is covered in the major media is newsworthy. it's just a way for them to distract you from what is really going on.

[freddyv]

let me put this in perspective for you. remember john kerry? democratic nominee for the 2004 presidential election...about 60 million people voted for him...he narrowly lost the election...any of this ringing a bell? ron paul just beat his record without even trying, and if you blinked while reading your news online today you probably missed the story on it.

[seanx]

...of course the mainstream media is controlled....just look at the few people who actually are the majority owners

....there was an interview done with a Daniel Estulin who is an investigative journalist and just wrote a book on the Bildergerg group (and has had his life threatened several times)....he said that inside informants who are privy to what the group is planning, have brought to the table a possible assassination of Dr. Paul due to his growing popularity. The one thing holding them back is the unknown as to what the mass public's response will be. Dr. Paul has made mention of this in previous interviews as well. The elite are worried and unsure of themselves.

In case you would discount what Estulin is saying, he has been correct on a majority of predictions and what his inside information tells.

Things are getting interesting..................

[freddyv]

freddyv said:

the average donation during the last money bomb was $50.

my figure was off, actual average donation was $102.

- 58,407 individual contributors
- 24,915 first-time donors
- $6.04 MM
- entirely self-organized

[JeffD5Buddy]

This could be another reason why it isn't as big of news to the non-Paul supporters. This is from the Federal Election Commission website..... not sure if this includes the recent "money bomb." Yeah it's a lot but not even a 1/4 of what Clinton has so why would you think this should be the story of the day....all day?

Candidates
(millions of dollars)
All Candidates 416.2
Democrats 241.1
Republicans 175.1
Clinton (D) 89.0
Obama (D) 79.4
Romney (R) 61.6
Giuliani (R) 46.7
McCain (R) 31.4
Edwards (D) 30.1
Richardson (D) 18.5
Dodd (D) 13.6
Thompson, F (R) 12.7
Paul (R) 8.2
Biden (D) 8.1
Brownback (R) 4.1
Tancredo (R) 3.5
Huckabee (R) 2.3
Kucinich (D) 2.1
Hunter (R) 1.9
Thompson, T (R) 1.1
Cox (R) 1.0
Gilmore (R) 0.4
Gravel (D) 0.4

[Mickulz]

For me, all the money talk and media coverage is great filler, but I still need more clarification on the issues.

[JeffD5Buddy]

I'm actually getting tired of the conversations on here (not that I've started any winners myself). Just sick of all the same things being rehashed over and over and over.... they are controlled by this group and they don't have him on and they don't give him credit, he's this and he's that. Getting old already.

[freddyv]

Ron Paul is currently at $18.3 MM with some time left in the quarter. He is the only candidate whose contributions have gone up every quarter. Romney's first quarter 2007 is the only Republican quarter that is higher, which includes his donation to himself.

Only power-fundraisers Hillary and Barack have higher quarters on the Dem side with their posh gala's and fundraising events. Ron Paul raised over 60% of his fourth quarter total in 48 hours without doing one iota of planning or organization.

Put's the situation a littel more in perspective, no?

Hate on, haters.

3rd Quarter 2007

Democrats

Candidate Money Raised, 3Q
Hillary Clinton $27,859,861
Barack Obama $21,343,291
John Edwards $7,157,232
Bill Richardson $5,358,585
Christopher Dodd $1,522,061
Joe Biden $1,757,394
Dennis Kucinich $1,011,696
Mike Gravel $130,598

Republicans
Candidate Money Raised, 3Q
Rudy Giuliani $11,624,255
Mitt Romney $9,896,719
Fred Thompson $9,750,820 †
Ron Paul $5,258,455
John McCain $5,734,477
Mike Huckabee $1,034,486
Duncan Hunter $486,356
Tom Tancredo $767,152
Sam Brownback $925,745

2nd Quarter 2007

Democrats
Candidate Money Raised, 2Q
Hillary Clinton $27,021,358
Barack Obama $33,120,440
John Edwards $9,097,495
Bill Richardson $7,090,278
Christopher Dodd $3,280,284
Joe Biden $2,451,180
Dennis Kucinich $757,035
Mike Gravel $140,510

Republicans
Candidate Money Raised, 2Q
Rudy Giuliani $17,599,292
Mitt Romney $14,275,263
John McCain $11,591,044
Ron Paul $2,369,453
Tom Tancredo $1,466,188
Sam Brownback $1,425,767
Duncan Hunter $814,417
Mike Huckabee $765,873
Tommy Thompson $461,555

1st Quarter 2007

Candidate Money Raised
Hillary Clinton $36,054,569
Barack Obama $25,797,722
John Edwards $14,031,663
Christopher Dodd $8,795,706
Bill Richardson $6,249,355
Joe Biden $4,013,090
Dennis Kucinich $358,569
Mike Gravel $108,236

Republicans
Candidate Money Raised
Mitt Romney $21,084,634
Rudy Giuliani $18,029,974
John McCain $14,798,613
Sam Brownback $1,871,058
Tom Tancredo $1,256,090
Ron Paul $639,989
Mike Huckabee $544,157
Duncan Hunter $538,524
Tommy Thompson $392,128
Jim Gilmore $203,897