Check out the picture! It is among the "Most Read" articles of the day.The article is about as bad as the american ones a couple of months ago, but I love the comment section.
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
BOOM!
CNN:
ABC News: Ron Paul is Money
New York Times: Guy Fawkes Day Helps Raise Millions for Paul
Associated Press: Paul Raises More Than $3.5 Million
Drudge Report front page: Ron Paul Raises More Than $3.5M in One Day...
Breitbart: Ron Paul Raises More Than $3.5M in One Day
Friday, November 2, 2007
TIME: The Ron Paul Revolution
"It sometimes seems as if someone is playing a cruel practical joke on Ron Paul. He goes to a college and delivers the same speech he's given for the past 30 years of his political career, the one espousing the Austrian school of economics. Only now the audience is packed with hundreds of kids in RON PAUL REVOLUTION T-shirts who go nuts..."
www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1678661,00.html
read more digg story
www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1678661,00.html
read more digg story
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Ron Paul Is Not Being Included In Polls
‘Despite trailing in Polls’ seems to be the media’s description of Ron Paul in the 2008 election, and now is itself a talking point used when referencing Paul by almost every major media outlet. His chances at becoming nominated, let alone elected president, seem to range from barely a blip on the radar at 8%, all the way down to an ‘also ran’ at 1% in national polls.
But where are they getting these statistics, and who is doing the polling?
http://www.socialdailynews.com/2007/10/ron-paul-is-not-being-included-in-pollsim/
read more digg story
But where are they getting these statistics, and who is doing the polling?
http://www.socialdailynews.com/2007/10/ron-paul-is-not-being-included-in-pollsim/
read more digg story
Thursday, October 25, 2007
USA Daily welcomes Ron Paul supporters to their forum
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=136629
USA Daily welcomes Ron Paul supporters and supporters of all of the candidates from either party into our newly launched USA Daily Forum that has just been launched in beta.
The controversy around the banning of Ron Paul supporters on Redstate, the conservative blog, seems to be indicative of a growing mentality regarding political expression.The limited time given to certain media non-preferred candidates running in either party, including Ron Paul, during the debates in this election, is a perfect example of an elitist mindset from members of the media. In the case of Ron Paul and the Republican primary, the idea that media generated polls should determine which candidates have a legitimate shot at winning the nomination instead of the actual amount of money raised is ridiculous. Ron Paul’s campaign at the end of the third quarter had 5.4 million dollars on hand, about a million dollars less than Fred Thompson and about half of what Giuliani has for the primary. Ron Paul’s campaign has pointed out that McCain’s campaign is actually in debt and that Huckabee has about $700,000 in cash. If McCain and Huckabee have a shot at winning, so does Ron Paul.
Ron Paul has generated crowds of 1-2 thousand people at various rallies across the country. Paul's campaign has raised almost 1.8 million this month and is on pace to raise about 2.5 million by the end of the month in online donations alone. Clearly there is support.It should also be noted that in 1996 Pat Buchanan was polling at 1-2% a few weeks prior to the New Hampshire primary even though he ended up winning it. We believe in free and fair elections and that only the voters can decide who has a legitimate shot at winning an election. We don’t know who will win the election but to claim that certain candidates can’t win implies that it isn’t really an election. We do understand that Redstate has their reasons for banning new Ron Paul supporters and they are certainly within their rights in determining the quality of the online community that they provide.
Our new forum is in Beta but we hope that voting by members on stories and posts will act as a self governing mechanism for the most part. Of course we will expect civility and professional behavior from all members of our forum regardless of political affiliation. Our forum is located on a separate website www.usadaily.net and is designed to allow for interactivity with our readers while still maintaining the integrity of our news site www.usadaily.com.
read more digg story
USA Daily welcomes Ron Paul supporters and supporters of all of the candidates from either party into our newly launched USA Daily Forum that has just been launched in beta.
The controversy around the banning of Ron Paul supporters on Redstate, the conservative blog, seems to be indicative of a growing mentality regarding political expression.The limited time given to certain media non-preferred candidates running in either party, including Ron Paul, during the debates in this election, is a perfect example of an elitist mindset from members of the media. In the case of Ron Paul and the Republican primary, the idea that media generated polls should determine which candidates have a legitimate shot at winning the nomination instead of the actual amount of money raised is ridiculous. Ron Paul’s campaign at the end of the third quarter had 5.4 million dollars on hand, about a million dollars less than Fred Thompson and about half of what Giuliani has for the primary. Ron Paul’s campaign has pointed out that McCain’s campaign is actually in debt and that Huckabee has about $700,000 in cash. If McCain and Huckabee have a shot at winning, so does Ron Paul.
Ron Paul has generated crowds of 1-2 thousand people at various rallies across the country. Paul's campaign has raised almost 1.8 million this month and is on pace to raise about 2.5 million by the end of the month in online donations alone. Clearly there is support.It should also be noted that in 1996 Pat Buchanan was polling at 1-2% a few weeks prior to the New Hampshire primary even though he ended up winning it. We believe in free and fair elections and that only the voters can decide who has a legitimate shot at winning an election. We don’t know who will win the election but to claim that certain candidates can’t win implies that it isn’t really an election. We do understand that Redstate has their reasons for banning new Ron Paul supporters and they are certainly within their rights in determining the quality of the online community that they provide.
Our new forum is in Beta but we hope that voting by members on stories and posts will act as a self governing mechanism for the most part. Of course we will expect civility and professional behavior from all members of our forum regardless of political affiliation. Our forum is located on a separate website www.usadaily.net and is designed to allow for interactivity with our readers while still maintaining the integrity of our news site www.usadaily.com.
read more digg story
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Ron Paul’s Wife Talks About Fox News Debate
Ron Paul ’s wife, Carol Paul, gives her opinion about the October Fox News Debate. A Liberty Sentinel Exclusive.“We couldn’t even buy tickets to get in.” “They had the crowd stacked”
read more digg story
read more digg story
Friday, October 12, 2007
CNBC Open Letter - Part II
They begin to talk to the Paulites!
Here is an answer from LewRockwell.com to the first letter:
CNBC’s Pulled Paul Poll
by Bob Murphy
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546
My Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters
Posted By:John Harwood
Topics:Presidential Politics (2008) Print Media Politics & Government White House
I have been reading e-mailed complaints from dozens and dozens of you about CNBC.com's decision to take down our online poll gauging results of the CNBC-MSNBC-Wall Street Journal presidential debate.
I agree with the complaints. I do not believe our poll was "hacked." Nor do I agree with my colleagues' decision to take it down, though I know they were acting in good faith.
My reasoning is simple: Political dialogue on the Internet, like democracy itself, ought to be open and participatory. If you sponsor an online poll as we did, you accept the results unless you have very good reason to believe something corrupt has occurred--just as democracies accept results on Election Day at the ballot box without compelling evidence of corruption. I have no reason to believe anything corrupt occurred with respect to our poll.
To the contrary, I believe the results we measured showing an impressive 75% naming Paul reflect the organization and motivation of Paul's adherents. This is precisely what unscientific surveys of this kind are created to measure. Another indication: the impressive $5-million raised by Paul's campaign in the third quarter of the year.
To be clear: I believe that Ron Paul's chances of winning the presidency are no greater than my own, which is to say zero. When he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988, he drew fewer than a half-million votes. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll of Republican primary voters--which IS a scientific poll with a four percentage point margin for error--Paul drew two percent.
He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because Paul's views--respectable, well-articulated and sincerely held as they are--are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in.
The difference we are discussing--breadth of views vs intensity of views--is a staple of political discussion and always has been in democracies. Highly motivated minorities can and do exert influence out of proportion to their numbers in legislative debates and even in some elections. They most certainly can dominate unscientific online polls. And when they do, we should neither be surprised nor censor the results.
--John Harwood
Here is an answer from LewRockwell.com to the first letter:
CNBC’s Pulled Paul Poll
by Bob Murphy
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546
My Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters
Posted By:John Harwood
Topics:Presidential Politics (2008) Print Media Politics & Government White House
I have been reading e-mailed complaints from dozens and dozens of you about CNBC.com's decision to take down our online poll gauging results of the CNBC-MSNBC-Wall Street Journal presidential debate.
I agree with the complaints. I do not believe our poll was "hacked." Nor do I agree with my colleagues' decision to take it down, though I know they were acting in good faith.
My reasoning is simple: Political dialogue on the Internet, like democracy itself, ought to be open and participatory. If you sponsor an online poll as we did, you accept the results unless you have very good reason to believe something corrupt has occurred--just as democracies accept results on Election Day at the ballot box without compelling evidence of corruption. I have no reason to believe anything corrupt occurred with respect to our poll.
To the contrary, I believe the results we measured showing an impressive 75% naming Paul reflect the organization and motivation of Paul's adherents. This is precisely what unscientific surveys of this kind are created to measure. Another indication: the impressive $5-million raised by Paul's campaign in the third quarter of the year.
To be clear: I believe that Ron Paul's chances of winning the presidency are no greater than my own, which is to say zero. When he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988, he drew fewer than a half-million votes. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll of Republican primary voters--which IS a scientific poll with a four percentage point margin for error--Paul drew two percent.
He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because Paul's views--respectable, well-articulated and sincerely held as they are--are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in.
The difference we are discussing--breadth of views vs intensity of views--is a staple of political discussion and always has been in democracies. Highly motivated minorities can and do exert influence out of proportion to their numbers in legislative debates and even in some elections. They most certainly can dominate unscientific online polls. And when they do, we should neither be surprised nor censor the results.
--John Harwood
An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful
They just don`t get it...CNBC took off the tv-debate-online-poll and their "Managing Editor" seems to be honest (in dubio pro reo) with this "open letter" but seems unable to grasp what is really happening outside his MSM-box...(and does not know what "hacking" actually means...).
An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful
Editor's Note:Dear folks,
You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.
That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.
Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.
So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.
Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.
The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.
But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.
Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.
Sincerely, Allen Wastler
Managing Editor,
CNBC.com
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Why is the controlled media so scared of RON PAUL?
Why is the controlled media so scared of RON PAUL?
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues
Excellent documentary! We don`t need you anymore, massmedia!
Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 1)
Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 2)
Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 3)
Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 4)
Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 1)
Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 2)
Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 3)
Ron Paul: The Censorship Continues (Part 4)
Monday, August 13, 2007
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)