U.S. News and World Report= AWFUL

[RestoreTheRepublic]

Hey guys, I'm new here but I found this article in print while browsing through the magazine today. Here is an excerpt of a passage pertaining to the influence of the internet in this election.

"Last week, Nielsen Media Research released figures on traffic to candidate websites that put Obama at the top, with close to 650,000 visitors in April. Hillary Clinton's website came in second with around 500,000. McCain's site was the highest trafficked among Republican candidates, with 212,000. Seen another way, Obama has more than twice the number of page views as Clinton—nearly 3.8 million for Obama compared with 1.6 million for Clinton in April. This suggests more return visitors and a more devoted online readership. John Edwards actually had more page views—1.7 million—than Clinton did." -U.S. News and World Report from the article "The Internet"

How can they say this??? Where is Nielsen getting their numbers?????? From everything else I have heard, this is simply not true and Ron Paul is leading all Republicans at least in the number of web traffic hits.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070708/16wild.net.htm

That is the link to the whole article

 

[damijin]

They may have requested hit numbers directly from the web masters, and Ron Paul's team may not have replied.

They should have at least CHECKED with Alexa before publishing though... cough cough
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=ronpaul2008.com

edit: fixed my url

 

[DjLoTi]

They might be looking at google labs or trends or something. They're not 'wrong', they're just outdated. They're the old media, after all.

In April, Ron Paul was not receiving the same amount of attention as he does now.

They won't be able to say those things in 3 months

 

[JoshLowry]

They are using data in their report that is from April.

Dr.Paul started waking people up after the first debate.

 

[RestoreTheRepublic]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I'm not too familiar with how reporting website traffic hits works and everything, just seemed strange how he wasn't mentioned at all in the article.

 

[Birdlady]

I know this came out on June 27.
http://clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3626275

I can't believe they didn't even mention RP in the article you posted. That shows you the media bias. McCain's whole campaign is crumbling yet they say he had the most clicks. Something doesn't seem right there.

Then again. McCain has spent a TON of money. Maybe he hired people to click on his site. lol

 

[mconder]

The Internet: It's a potent new tool, but no one's sure how to use it

This title says it all. Reading between the line I am seeing "The Internet: It's a potent new tool, but we haven't figured out how to use it for thought control yet."

 

[shrugged0106]

ahhh, today has been so full of blessings and great articles on the campaign that my good mood and positive feelings cant be dented.

 

[MsDoodahs]

The Internet: It's a potent new tool, but no one's sure how to use it

This title says it all. Reading between the line I am seeing "The Internet: It's a potent new tool, but we haven't figured out how to use it for thought control yet."

Word.

 

[RestoreTheRepublic]

Yea all of the good news lately has been a great relief. Also, sorry for the confusion I did not notice that their facts were taken from April. That seems more believable in that case because it was before Ron Paul had the recognition he is beginning to get now. My apologies. More good news I plan to donate at least $50 this week and hopefully more. Hopefully my donations can be a weekly thing

 

[Avalon]

Well, not only was the RP following small (but certainly spirited!) before the first debate, McCain was probably seen as the leading candidate at the time and the immigration bill hadn't yet reared its ugly ugly head.

 

[BillyBeer]

Umm it IS owned by AIPAC and transnational toady Mort Zuckerman...

 

[smtwngrl]

I know this came out on June 27.
http://clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3626275

I can't believe they didn't even mention RP in the article you posted. That shows you the media bias.

Yes, it's the MSM, and they have a blackout going on when it comes to Ron Paul.

That said, though, I followed the Alexa link. There he is in third place. Obama is first, and Hillary is second. (The Ron Paul Meetup site is in 7th place, lol.)

Several observations:
1. The rankings include both traffic and page views. The average page views for visitors to Obama's and Clinton's sites was 3-4. For Dr Paul's, it was 1.7-2.3.
2. Though Obama and Clinton have higher overall traffic, their traffic is not increasing. Obama had large spikes in January and February. Then it went way down and has stayed fairly stable...except it's gradually decreasing a little. Hillary's is much the same--a huge spike in January and it has been stable since then.
3. Ron's doesn't follow the same trend. His started small and it increases exponentially after each debate, then goes down between, but it's still a lot higher than before the debate. So after each debate, the line on his graph climbs higher. If the trend continues, he will easily pass both Obama and Hillary in web traffic.
4. Remember, they are well known and he is not (yet).

 

[synapz]

They should have at least CHECKED with Alexa before publishing though... cough cough
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=ronpaul2008.com
l

Maybe we could get in touch with the folks at Alexa and tell them that they are being called liars... turn them against one another, so to speak, let them scuffle, and watch the truth rise to the top.

 

[a_texian]

Maybe we could get in touch with the folks at Alexa and tell them that they are being called liars... turn them against one another, so to speak, let them scuffle, and watch the truth rise to the top.

I really like the way you think!!

 

[smtwngrl]

But according to Alexa, Obama was in 1st place, Hillary 2nd, Ron 3rd.