Start documenting media bias against RP in this thread, NOW

Be careful in lumping in errors with bias.

The headline several posts ago that said "dozens" leading to a story that said "hundreds" is actually a pretty common mistake. The link/headline was likely written at a different time than the story itself. When I worked at a newspaper we had a worse error. A link talked about a girl surviving a car crash, then when you followed the link she was dead. People in the community were pretty upset at that one.
 
MelissaWV said:
Be careful in lumping in errors with bias.

The headline several posts ago that said "dozens" leading to a story that said "hundreds" is actually a pretty common mistake. The link/headline was likely written at a different time than the story itself. When I worked at a newspaper we had a worse error. A link talked about a girl surviving a car crash, then when you followed the link she was dead. People in the community were pretty upset at that one.
Click to expand...

Look at the pic more closely. The headline/link was posted 20 minutes *after* the story was posted. The dude who caught this (and took the screen caps) started a discussion about it on another forum. 10 minutes after the discussion started, the Houston Chronicle changed the link to read "Crowds line up to see George W. Bush...". Both the original and subsequent edited link verbiage downplayed the size of the crowd.
 
low preference guy said:
I think you should give examples of other reporters using the word correctly, rather than saying "I send this to so many reporters!".

This article uses non-interventionism correctly:



Tea Party declares war on military spending (Guardian)
Click to expand...

Paul West responded to me and I used your advice when replying back to him. Here is Mr. West's response:

Thank you for taking the time to write and thank you for the tone of your email. I understand your point and I feel sure that as the campaign goes along, assuming that Ron Paul runs for president again, there will an opportunity to delve into more detail on his foreign policy and defense views. As I'm sure you know, space limitations often require reporters to rely on shorthand (labels) in trying to provide background explanation of events. Without trying to start a debate over semantics, the dictionary definition of isolationist is "person who wants his country to take no part in international alliances," which would seem to encompass Rep. Paul (he specifically mentioned George Washington's line about no entangling alliances, which you refer to as well). As isolationism is popularly known, and has been for decades in American politics, he would appear to fit the definition.
Again, thank you for the civil tone of your email and for taking the time to read the article.
Best regards,
Paul West
Click to expand...
 
Bern said:
Look at the pic more closely. The headline/link was posted 20 minutes *after* the story was posted. The dude who caught this (and took the screen caps) started a discussion about it on another forum. 10 minutes after the discussion started, the Houston Chronicle changed the link to read "Crowds line up to see George W. Bush...". Both the original and subsequent edited link verbiage downplayed the size of the crowd.
Click to expand...

How does that disprove my point? The link was posted at a different time than the story. It's not uncommon for them to be out of synch.

To put it more clearly, if the point was to make people think more people saw GW Bush than merely "dozens," then wouldn't the headline say "hundreds" while the story admitted to only "dozens"?
 
You got it backwards. There actually were >100 people there (possibly more than 2-300). The link was posted on the front page of the site and had greater visibility than the article itself. It downplayed the size of the crowd. The link was published after the story. They initially wrote "dozens". That's 7 letters. The first freaking line of the story said "hundreds". That's 8 letters. It was later changed to "crowds". Does "crowds" even remotely suggest 100+ people (much less 2-300 people) to the average reader? I don't think so. Words matter.
 
KramerDSP said:
Paul West responded to me and I used your advice when replying back to him. Here is Mr. West's response:
Click to expand...
Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitments, or international agreements, in hopes of focusing all of its resources into advancement within its own borders while remaining at peace with foreign countries by avoiding all entanglements of foreign agreements. In other words, it asserts both of the following:

1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense).
2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
 
"Let The 2012 Jockeying Begin" - Linda Feldmann. Christian Science Monitor, Vol 102 Issue 37 (Aug 9, 2010)
http://www.digitaleditiononline.com/display_article.php?id=459951
Lists all the establishment types like Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich. Lists some small timers like John Thune, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal and more. Not a single word about Ron Paul

Dick Cheney is an isolationist (opposed to all negotiations, opposed to all diplomacy, and seeks a Military-bloodshed only strategy of destruction -- clearly no approach could ever be more isolated than that one).
Click to expand...
Cheney and the neocons absolutely are the isolationists. I love this clip about Reagan calling for diplomacy, and the one after that describes Reagan's actual foreign policy in practice which is much different from what the neocons wanted.

 
OP is updated with the following:

New York Times previews CPAC; fails to mention Ron Paul, Rand Paul (2/8/2011):
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/hopefuls-and-no-shows-at-2012-cpac/

Fox News commissions poll for 2012 primary; includes 14 candidates, but not Ron Paul (2/9/2011)
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021111_2012_election_web.pdf

CBS News defines Paul's foreign policy as "isolationism" (2/11/2011)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031602-503544.html

Politico gives Ron Paul's CPAC speech a "C" - lowest grade of any potential candidate (2/11/2011):
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/perm/0211/paul_report_card.html

Carrie Dann of MSNBC: Paul "almost certainly lacks campaign organization", before campaign has even started (2/11/2011):
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/12/6041419-ron-paul-wins-cpac-straw-poll-

Joe Klein of Time Magazine called Paul 'isolationist', slams his 'opt-out' offer (2/12/2011):
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/12/the-other-red-meat/

Washington Post considers Ron Paul a CPAC loser, despite straw poll victory (2/13/2011):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/13/AR2011021301463.html
 
Don't bother documenting media bias, or crying about it -- just keep making them look like morons, by winning straw polls, raising money, registering Republican voters, and shocking the world in the primaries and caucuses. The general population is slowly waking up, and they know better than to believe what they are told anymore.
 
Paul4Prez said:
Don't bother documenting media bias, or crying about it -- just keep making them look like morons, by winning straw polls, raising money, registering Republican voters, and shocking the world in the primaries and caucuses. The general population is slowly waking up, and they know better than to believe what they are told anymore.
Click to expand...

I think it's worthwhile for the simple fact that many people who aren't political junkies don't see the media bias, so when you mention the media's campaign to marginalize and alienate him, most people think you're just whining and that there's no substance to it. I think approaching people with a list a mile long of media bias at least might get the gears turning for some, to question why there might be an agenda against the man.

Also, of course we're going to keep trying to win straw polls, working hard on other grassroots projects, raising money, etc. Compiling these really doesn't take much time, since forum members are posting them here anyway.
 
Last edited:
malkusm said:
I think it's worthwhile for the simple fact that many people who aren't political junkies don't see the media bias
Click to expand...

I do too.
I also think that when the times come, we need to faithfully document the Republican Party breaking its own rules to keep him out, we need to faithfully document the legal hindrances to getting him on the ballot, and we need to faithfully document the ballot stuffing.
 
malkusm said:
I think it's worthwhile for the simple fact that many people who aren't political junkies don't see the media bias, so when you mention the media's campaign to marginalize and alienate him, most people think you're just whining and that there's no substance to it. ...
Click to expand...

That's been my experience too.
 
JamesButabi said:
Now taking domain votes (or suggestions) and building templates.

RonPaulvstheWorld.com
RonPaulvsMedia.com
WhyRonPaulLost.com
RonPaulBias.com <-----I lean towards this. Simple, easy, and straightforward
DistortingRonPaul.com
Click to expand...

RonPaulWiki.org
 
enjerth said:
RonPaulWiki.org
Click to expand...

Make it a site that doesn't just document media bias, but also provides a quick documentation on all things Ron Paul, including citations to dispute the claim that he's an isolationist, weak on foreign policy etc etc ad nauseam.
 
The bias of omission - lots here in the UK - like when you read an article on the Tea Party and it's originator isn't mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jmdrake
Barack Obama now more libertarian than Donald Trump
Replies
16
Views
195
familydog
F
Anti Federalist
Ohio heat wave
Replies
1
Views
257
jkr
jkr
PAF
The Real National Emergency: Endless Wars, Failing Infrastructure, and a Dying Republic
Replies
5
Views
80
acptulsa
acptulsa
Occam's Banana
Mises University 2025
2 3
Replies
45
Views
586
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Bootstraps or Bailouts? The Hidden Truth of Israel’s Military Power
Replies
0
Views
65
PAF
PAF
Back
Top