Deliberate Exclusion of Ron Paul - Relentless Email Bomb!

[musicmax]

This is what I sent to [email protected]

Who CARES about EMAILS? GET OUT OF YOUR MOTHER's BASEMENT AND MAKE A PHONE CALL

 

[Opulen]

This means war!!

 

[fireworks_god]

Bump. They still haven't fixed this. I've sent another email.

Who cares about emails? We're talking about something that is happening on the net, and it'll be hard for them to conduct their business when they get millions of emails from us - phone calls are highly effective too! (I'll call them tomorrow if this is not fixed)

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html


I couldn't help but notice that I have not received a response back from my email yesterday regarding this. Your Election Guide linked above is blatantly censoring the results of Republican Ron Paul. I'm a bit confused as to your metric for deciding to exclude the Republican candidate that has received twice as many votes as two candidates that you have listed. I refer you to some accurate information:



Vote count after IA, WY, NH and MI:
Romney - 441,602 - 37%
McCain - 359,882 - 30%
Huckabee - 206,575 - 17%
Paul - 84,082 - 7%
Thompson - 50,847 - 4%
Giuliani - 48,857 - 4%



Resolve this immediately. Your attempt to unduly sway a Presidental election through deliberate omission is lacking of any integrity. There is no justifiable reason to exclude someone who has received twice as many votes of two candidates that you have listed. This is not tolerable, and the grass-roots supporters of Ron Paul will begin to look for legal avenues through which to ensure that this crime does not go unpunished.

 

[fireworks_god]

1-888-NYT-NEWS.

Waiting to leave a message right now.

 

[fireworks_god]

That was hilarious!

Everyone call and cite the actual results and demand they fix this.

 

[fuzzybekool]

I honestly wonder if we could file a class action lawsuit against the media for this. Any good lawyers out there?

I am way ahead of you. I been searching the internet here at work every opportunity I get. So far no luck at finding lawsuits filed in the past.

It seems the press is protected by the 1st amendment to print or say what they want short of defamation of character.

I am not a lawyer myself, but it would seem to reason that a well established pattern of suppression is going on against Dr. Paul, and we have the proof as I am sure many of you have saved the screenshots in the past. The big 5 media corporations are now more of a profit entertainment entity and not really pure news anymore and they control 90% of the news / information outlets.

I would argue that some sort of an anti-trust suit could be filed against the MSM or one of the big 5 media corporations just as Micorsoft was successfully sued a few years back.

Sorry, if a lawyer sees this and thinks I am way off and whacks me with a post. Maybe I should go to law school, lol. Just my opinion.

 

[Runnerguy]

This is just sick. I'd expect this from faux but not the NYT. Needless to say my subscription with them will be happily canceled today.

 

[fuzzybekool]

message left - 1-888-NYT-NEWS

 

[bolidew]

This is unacceptable. I am going to unsubscribe NYT if they don't fix it soon.

 

[oldjersey]

Call 1-888-NYT-NEWS
press 0
you can then say the name of any NYTIMES reporter and will be transfered to them.
So browse the politics section and start calling.

 

[fireworks_god]

Thank you for contacting NYTimes.com

Currently on the results page, the candidates are ordered by the
number of delegates received by each under the Times' delegate
allocation standards.

For the candidates who have not received any delegates yet, which
currently includes Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Fred
Thompson, we have been using the candidates' ranking in national
polls as the factor in deciding who to include, since the page is
meant to be both a guide to both the completed contests and the
upcoming races.

The most recent Times/CBS News poll had Giuliani at 10%, Thompson at
8% and Paul at 5%. Other polls show similar trends -- see:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

If Ron Paul pulls ahead of Thompson or Giuliani in the delegate
count, he'll be included on the page in place of them.

It's also worth pointing out that Paul and the other candidates in the lower tiers are all included in the individual state.

Regards,

Robert Peterson
NYTimes.com
Customer Service
www.nytimes./help

Now, why would they sort the candidates who have not received any delegates by standing in national polls, and not actual votes cast?

This is still not acceptable. Let's tell them!

 

[bolidew]

Continue to bomb.

 

[ValidusCustodiae]

Tell them just because they set their standards exactly where it will exclude Ron Paul doesn't mean their standards are legitimate.

 

[fireworks_god]

The American people themselves have decided that they are far more interested in voting for Ron Paul than Fred Thompson and Giuliani. Why use polls when you can use votes? It is senseless. I'll be contacting this dude tomorrow.

 

[fireworks_god]

First off, I appreciate the response back. I've reviewed the Election Guide for 2008 again, and the thought occurs to me that it really does not make sense to sort the percentage of vote page by delegates as well. Why not sort the percentage of vote column, by the percentage of vote, and then sort the delegate count, by the count of delegates?

With all due respect, it is only a reasonable perspective that a graph that is entitled Primary Season Election Results, dedicated to the percent of votes cast, would include a candidate that has received nearly twice as many votes as two other candidates that were included.

The fact that I am a Ron Paul supporter personally does not mean the idea I am putting forth that it only makes sense to include Ron Paul in the Election Guide is not legitamate, or that it is biased. In fact, I'd happen to think that most people who are not Ron Paul supporters would have noticed something was missing, because they rely on your guide for showing them what the page suggests it displays, Primary Season Election Results.

The right margin clearly leaves enough room for one more candidate. Why not make an effort to be more accurate in providing resources to American voters by including a candidate who has received more actual votes than two candidates you have listed?

Is the page really meant to be a guide to completed contests? Using national polls as a metric for sorting the list beyond the amount of delegates they have already received honestly doesn't make any sense when it doesn't provide any resources beyond the day that the event is held. The page in question says Election Results, not how a small group of people nationally say they may vote.

Sorting the candidates by percentage of vote on the percentage of vote page only makes common sense. If there are no ulterior motives in not listing Ron Paul, then I see no legitamate reason he should not be. It is a disservice to your readers and the American election process to omit a candidate who is handily receiving more votes than other candidates you list - "national polls" are no justification for this lack of reporting facts.

I'm going to continue to pursue this matter until Ron Paul's handsome picture and the amount of votes he has received appears on this Election Guide, and I will continue to urge others to do the same. The American election process is far too crucial and important to let baseless omissions in reporting take place.

Thank you for your time.

Let's hit them some more! This isn't just about Ron Paul, it is about ensuring the media is held to an ethical standard higher than corporate interests.

 

[Bossobass]

We should get the Chinese to make a container of dildos with the
logo: 'Bend over, here comes the NYT'
Then stand on the street surrounding their HQ and hold one up
shouting, "Free with every subscription!".

Seriously folks. One RP rally in NY City, attended by 50,000 supporters
would put their Josef Stalin campaign reporting right where it belongs.
We have no power against that BS rag other than physical numbers
(which we have) and productive organization of those numbers,
which, sadly, we lack.

Bosso

 

[Tidewise]

I have been writing and getting the same response. I will continue to write (I have been polite, but pointing out how this impacts NYT credibility, blah blah blah).