<1%* of the Media's Election Stories were About Ron Paul Before Super Tuesday—Alaskan's Study

* <1% when compared to the candidates Heather mentions below [ed.]

From: Nolan Chart

Alaska Converts McCain Delegates to Ron Paul

Hope for St. Paul Convention – A successful plan proven by Alaska meetup group for converting delegates to Ron Paul nationwide.

by Future Writer – Heather Saarela

A letter from Evan Cutler – Girdwood, Alaska, District 32 Delegate for Ron Paul

Here in Alaska we grew a group of delegates after our primaries into the Alaska Ron Paul Delegates meetup. In that group we pulled together about 70 of our 110 or so Ron Paul delegates in order to work and communicate together for the seven weeks before the state convention.We did one project that I think bears replication, both for states with pending State Conventions, but also, and most importantly, on a national level, before the St. Paul Convention. First, we realized that mainstream media had been almost completely ignoring Dr. Paul.

According to my own study, which I can provide to Nolan Chart, of the 2,188 mainstream media stories about presidential candidates between January 14th and February 10th, only 4 were about Dr. Ron Paul. Contrast that to:

756 stories about Hillary Clinton
760 stories about Barack Obama
674 stories about about John McCain
424 stories about Mitt Romney
281 stories about Mike Huckabee

While we set the world record for single day campaign contributions the month before, our candidate was virtually ignored just one month later!

Read Entire Story

‘Federal’ Reserve Historian, G. Edward Griffin, Back In ‘Wiki’pedia—Though Heavily Censored

From: Reality Zone


Last week my biographical listing in Wikipedia was deleted after being on line for about five years. The reason was that some of Wikipedia’s administrators do not like my view that there are hidden agendas in banking and government and they do not favor my advocacy of natural health without drugs.

When I announced this in Unfiltered News, it triggered a wave of indignation that flooded the Internet and talk shows. Friends and supporters were angry that Wikipedia has no problem listing Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Dong, Al Capone, or even John D. Rockefeller’s father William Avery Rockefeller who, according to Wikipedia itself: “was a quack doctor and a confidence trickster;” yet, the editors found me to be so offensive that I had to be removed from the Internet lest my ideas contaminate the public mind.

Then, on Friday afternoon, my listing suddenly was back, although drastically scrubbed to omit almost anything that might create a favorable impression. Gone is recognition of my participation on the Board of Directors of The National Health Federation and The International Association of Cancer Victors and Friends. There is no mention of The Audio Archives or my founding and leadership of The Cancer Cure Foundation, Freedom Force International, The Coalition for Visible Ballots, The Reality Zone, or Unfiltered News. Even my photo is gone.

(Well, maybe that’s a good thing after all.) Of course, they were careful to let readers know that my works are “controversial” and that most doctors do not agree with my conclusions regarding cancer therapy. I have no objection to that because, basically, those are true statements, but I do object to their omitting the fact that there is massive support for my views and that there are several million readers of my works, which currently are published in five countries. All of that is true, also.

Nevertheless, the bright side is that the outcry was sufficiently strong to at least cause my listing to be restored. That’s progress! Thank you for your support.


Related: CIA Caught Editing Wikipedia

Ron Paul: “We’re Never on National News”

Ron Paul Austin Rally coverage on KTBC FOX 7


“We’re never on national news. We can have a crowd five, six, ten thousand people. it never makes the national network.

If another candidate did that? I mean there’s other candidates who would have 300, and it would be on national news.

So you get marginalized there. You get marginalized in the debates.

Basically, I had 1/3 the time the other ones had.”

Transcribed by Jeff Fenske

Underreporting Ron Paul: NPR’s Media Coverage Stats Before Super Tuesday

From: RonPaul2008.com

Underreporting Ron Paul

Several readers have brought to my attention a very interesting National Public Radio interview with Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. A caller to the program, Andrew, asked Rosenstiel a question about coverage of Ron Paul and the power of the press to decide which candidates are “viable.” This is what Rosenstiel had to say:

It raises obviously one of the fundamental questions: is press coverage a self-fulfilling prophecy? Can a candidate who doesn’t get press coverage win votes, or do you need the exposure, the oxygen of attention? Last week, the week before Super Tuesday, the coverage that ended Feb. 3, Ron Paul was a significant or primary figure in zero percent of the stories that we analyzed, 600 stories across 48 different news outlets.

Andrew is correct in suggesting that the press has discounted the chances of Ron Paul having any success. The fundraising success that he’s having is one of the traditional metrics that journalists use to test viability. If someone is raising money, usually that translates into some attention.

For a variety of reasons, some of them are obvious and some of them are mysterious, Ron Paul gets less coverage than he does raise money, and he gets less coverage than he gets votes. We can go on and on about this. There is no doubt, it’s an objective fact, that the press has decided Ron Paul is not a viable candidate.

You can hear the interview for yourself at NPR’s site. Andrew’s question and Rosenstiel’s response occur about five minutes in.

The media news isn’t all so daunting. We’ve been working hard, particularly with local media, to get Dr. Paul’s name out. Our media presence increased over the last three months: in November, we had 2638 broadcast media mentions of Ron Paul; about 2768 hits in December; and 6291 in January, at the height of the primary season. Our print media exposure also increased from December to January, from 2400 hits to 4425 hits. These hits don’t necessarily cover everything, but they’re reflective of trends.

So, we’re fighting back, but as Rosenstiel’s remarks show, we’re up against national media that have already made up their minds about Ron Paul and have decided not to cover him to the extent that his fundraising and his following merit.

(And ideas should count for something too, right? Unfortunately, as the endless hours of TV coverage dedicated to celebrities, celebrity overdoses, and hearings about steroids in baseball indicate, serious issues like the war in Iraq, the declining dollar and tumbling economy, and the growth of ever more intrusive government are just not on the agenda of many “news” sources.)


Blatant Anti-Paul Media Bias: CNN Pie Charts [New Hampshire]

Again, where is Ron Paul?


In the Republican chart, the blue pie piece is mostly Ron Paul, as the numbers at the bottom show that Paul is tied with Giuliani at 9% [who had his piece in the pie – editor, now that the video has been pulled].

Then they show the Democratic chart, which has no large unnamed area. They even give Richardson his own piece, though he only has 4%.


Blatant Anti-Paul Media Bias: CNN Pie Charts [Iowa]

[media bias exposed] After Debate, CNN AIRS *INSIDERS* POLL Instead of THEIR OWN POLL in which Ron Paul Won

Blatant Anti-Paul Media Bias: CNN Pie Charts [Iowa]

I’m watching CNN’s coverage of the Iowa Caucus, and I’m just amazed at the how blatantly they’re ignoring Ron Paul entirely. I have always considered the bias against him to be the result of his low numbers, but as I’m watching this I can only conclude that they just don’t want him getting attention. Let me explain.

On the screen they have these pie charts showing the percentage of votes for each candidate. The pie chart shows 35% Huckabee, 24% Romney, 14% Thompson, 12% McCain, and then a big gray slice that’s not labeled. Add those up. That’s 85%, which leaves 15% unaccounted for. You would expect this perhaps if that 15% was very evenly split among many candidates. So I looked at CNN.com for the full results. Here’s the shocker: Ron Paul has 11%. Look again at the numbers above. Ron Paul is only 1% behind McCain, who shows prominently in the pie chart on national TV. Giuliani has 4%, and no other candidate shows anything.

Then I look at the Democrat pie chart on TV. It shows 4 or 5 candidates called out, and then a tiny gray area for about 2%. There is no giant gray area with no name.

Click for Story and Pie Chart Photos


Blatant Anti-Paul Media Bias: CNN Pie Charts [New Hampshire]

[media bias exposed] After Debate, CNN AIRS *INSIDERS* POLL Instead of THEIR OWN POLL in which Ron Paul Won