NPR - A Roundtable on Campaign Coverage

[theseus51]

It was a 27 minute segment, and they discuss media bias in terms of coverage time of candidates. There is quite a bit of discussion of Ron Paul, all things considered. Basically saying that Ron Paul has small but loyal supporters, but ultimately since it's a small percent of the population, that's why there's a small amount of coverage.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18881616

 

[LEK]

...all things considered.

I like it.

 

[AlbemarleNC0003]

NPR hasn't been very fair either. Many of their guests and commentators still leave Paul out of the discussion. Even when many callers want a real conservative candidate, his name never comes up.

 

[FortWorth38]

Effective 2009 NPR will be banned from WH Press Coverages

 

[Change]

NPR has not been fair with Paul. Either your a candidate or you are not. For the media to decide who gets coverage and who does not is censorship, clear and simple.

 

[acstichter]

NPR has not been fair with Paul. Either your a candidate or you are not. For the media to decide who gets coverage and who does not is censorship, clear and simple.

I don't hear a lot of griping that Alan Keyes didn't get any coverage. In AZ there were 25 candidates on the Republican ballot and 25 candidates on the Democratic ballot. Surely I don't expect the newspaper to track them all.

The major news organizations survive on profitability and in order to maintain viewers from tuning out, they focus on the candidates who people 1) know, 2) like or 3) are shocking.

With 5% polling we didn't satisfy 1 or 2. With our $6 million dollar day, we satisfied number 3, but for a short time. I personally feel that by increasing our donations every quarter and being the leading earner in 4th quarter we warranted a lot more attention. I think the news orgs have tough criteria.

 

[d03boy]

if you think that the media doesn't have time to cover them all, then why can't they replace time they give with the "big candidates" with the little ones? The only reason they don't have time is because they spend it all on the "big ones"

 

[kathy88]

At this point it is blatant misrepresentation. There are only 3 freaking candidates left on the GOP side, and Guiliani still gets more time. Please.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't hear a lot of griping that Alan Keyes didn't get any coverage. In AZ there were 25 candidates on the Republican ballot and 25 candidates on the Democratic ballot. Surely I don't expect the newspaper to track them all.

The major news organizations survive on profitability and in order to maintain viewers from tuning out, they focus on the candidates who people 1) know, 2) like or 3) are shocking.

With 5% polling we didn't satisfy 1 or 2. With our $6 million dollar day, we satisfied number 3, but for a short time. I personally feel that by increasing our donations every quarter and being the leading earner in 4th quarter we warranted a lot more attention. I think the news orgs have tough criteria.

Alan Keyes has zero delegates. Alan Keyes never beat Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson head to head in an actual primary. When Tom Tancredo was polling at 2% he got more coverage than Ron Paul at 5%. Same for Duncan Hunter. Same for Tommy Thompson. Early on NPR (and Faux News) corresponded Juan Williams said there was "no antiwar republican in race unless you count (and he named some republican senator that was NOT in the race)". You simply can't explain this away by anything other than media blackout.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Lord Xar]

He Has A Small Group Of Followers Because He Has No Coverage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Phucccck

 

[Paulitician]

At this point I understand their reasoning but I don't agree with it, especially since I know how we got here. We didn't get here because Ron got ample coverage and the American people just chose reject him. In fact, he got minimal coverage and only 50% of all Americans voters even had a clue who he was. How can you vote for someone you have never heard of or know almost nothing about?

 

[spacehabitats]

NPR stinks on ice.

NPR stinks on ice. They have never had balanced coverage. Even before the election they would give biased coverage on key issues such as illegal immigration, er... excuse me, I mean the undocumented workers and those fair-minded, non-xenophobic, non-racist, American citizens who share in their valiant struggle to bring the benefits of cultural diversity to the United States in the same spirit as all of our pioneering ancestors who came to these shores to find a better way of life and the American Dream through honest labor, toiling away to carve a homestead out of the wilderness that once was San Diego.

 

[ArrestPoliticians]

Effective 2009 NPR will be banned from WH Press Coverages

good

 

[futsnfup]

I don't hear a lot of griping that Alan Keyes didn't get any coverage. In AZ there were 25 candidates on the Republican ballot and 25 candidates on the Democratic ballot. Surely I don't expect the newspaper to track them all.

The major news organizations survive on profitability and in order to maintain viewers from tuning out, they focus on the candidates who people 1) know, 2) like or 3) are shocking.

With 5% polling we didn't satisfy 1 or 2. With our $6 million dollar day, we satisfied number 3, but for a short time. I personally feel that by increasing our donations every quarter and being the leading earner in 4th quarter we warranted a lot more attention. I think the news orgs have tough criteria.

The major difference here is that NPR is a non-profit which, supposedly, prides itself on bringing coverage to topics and issues that you won't get anywhere else.

I had also noticed several instances on NPR where it seemed that they were talking about Ron Paul in vagaries without actually mentioning his name. It seemed that the mention of Dr. Paul's name in these instances was purposely avoided.

In my opinion, NPR has been on a downward slope, especially in the last 5 years. Before long it will be nothing more than a subtle version of Fox News. They've been in bed with the Pew Charitable Trusts, et al for too long. This is the first year in the last ten that I won't be making a contribution to my local NPR Member Station, and I let them know that what I just stated is exactly the reason why they're losing this contributor.