Ron Paul churns in the Mention Machine

[bobbyw24]

By Natalie Jennings

For someone who complained about a lack of media attention, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul got plenty from The Washington Post this week.

Our ombudsman, Patrick B. Pexton, devoted this past weekend’s column to our coverage of Paul and concluded the Post had a “sparse” record.

The Fix responded with this post explaining why the media might be wary of putting Paul on heavy rotation on its pages.

And, after the media coverage of the lack of Paul media coverage, our media blogger Erik Wemple explained that media coverage about lack of media coverage is still media coverage.

Still with me? No? Let’s just look at what the numbers say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...2011/09/02/gIQAvxwMxJ_blog.html?wprss=the-fix

 

[Bruno]

So Paul got slightly more (and sometimes even less) coverage than John Huntsman, who he polls nearly 10 times higher than. And half the media coverage of Bachmann, though he leads her in many polls or trails only by a percentage or two in others during that time.

yeah, nothing unfair about that at all.

 

[bobbyw24]

So Paul got slightly more (and sometimes even less) coverage than John Huntsman, who he polls nearly 10 times higher than. And half the media coverage of Bachmann, though he leads her in many polls or trails only by a percentage or two in others during that time.

yeah, nothing unfair about that at all.

The Washington Post will always suck

 

[Corpsman4Liberty]

the fact that there was an avalanche of news stories covering the fact that ron paul was ignored justifies the fact that ron paul was ignored.

It's a vicious cycle.