Update from Ben Swann regarding Newsletter-Part II of "Reality Check"

Anyone dissing Swann is my view is a hypocrite..

You are the one that says media is treating Ron badly. They are bad and they aren't even journalists.

Swann does ACTUAL Journalism. And that is supposed to be bad. For some reason people here just want to hear good things, anything bad turns into immediate 'slander'.

Why are you concerned if Swann is a friend or not. I personally don't want JOURNALISM to be from the perspective of being a friend. Journalism should be about facts.

Newsletters ARE in the news, have been in the news, and will remain in the news. If a journalist does research on it and presents real journalism without much bias, then you should be happy. It doesn't matter if the matter is about Ron Paul or not.

Instead of being a 'follower' of Ron Paul, you have to step back from and realize this movement about liberty ISN'T about a man.

Real Journalism SHOULD be appreciated. And we do appreciate it. But for some reason when the content is to our disliking we shun it. Get a grip. So long as his piece is in all honesty real journalism, you need to appreciate it. That is way better than what the MSM does.

If you think everything MSM says about Ron should be positive, then I question your wish for 'fair news' 'fair shake'. Seems to be 'fair' in your view means 'pro-Paul'.

News anchors shouldn't base their stories off of 'I'm a friend', it should be about 'this is what is factual'.

Swann is doing a great job as a journalist, and I wished he was on national news channels. Whether the piece is pro or anti-Paul is irrelevant because real journalism is pro-FACT which is what I believe Swann TRIES to accomplish.
 
RPit said:
Swann is doing a great job as a journalist, and I wished he was on national news channels. Whether the piece is pro or anti-Paul is irrelevant because real journalism is pro-FACT which is what I believe Swann TRIES to accomplish.
Click to expand...

I agree. I would love to watch his segment on my TV. There should definitely be more fact-checking than the news regurgitating that we're being spoon-fed right now. Someone on this forum mentioned before that a real journalist would actually try to figure who wrote the newsletters — rather than lazily attribute them to Paul. Well, this is what Ben Swann is trying to do now.

We need real journalists like Swann to do their jobs accurately and effectively. Journalists are not supposed to be pro-Paul (or anti-Paul or ignore-as-if-he-doesn't-exist-Paul), they're supposed to be pro-Truth and pro-Facts. It just so happens that more often than not, Paul, Truth, and Facts overlap. :D
 
agorist ninja said:
Anyone dissing Ben Swann in this thread is clueless. Just stop posting.

He's gone above and beyond to fairly report issues pertaining to Ron Paul. Like it, or not, the newsletters will be a story until the campaign ends. Ben is doing great, great work by presenting the facts, so people can see that the claims against Dr. Paul are largely baloney.
Click to expand...

Ben Swann is definitely an ally:

"I consume an enormous amount of news on a daily basis and began to notice how few of the national media would even mention Congressman Paul’s name. Regardless of how he was doing in the polls, he was largely ignored by commentators. After the CBS debate where Rep. Paul was only given 89 seconds of time to speak despite polling between 12 and 15 percent at the time compared to Rick Santorum who was polling between 1 and 3 percent nationally but given 5:45 seconds of time, I felt it was time to call out the media on their treatment of the candidate." -- Ben Swann

http://www.examiner.com/independent...s-seek-balanced-news-find-anchorman-ben-swann

I even created a FB Fanpage for him: "Ben Swann for Press Secretary 2012"

I think he has tries to self promote at times, but who cares. It creates a larger audience for his stories....and that's good for Ron Paul.
 
Austin said:
So if it isn't Paul.. then why was James sitting on the information the whole time?
Click to expand...

You just answered your own question. It isn't Paul, James wanted to smear Paul, so he sat on the information. The only question left is why would he release it now? Maybe he grew a conscience.

I'm expecting it to be Paul's name, but if it isn't... several outlets owe Ron an apology. Still, they will turn it into "So Ron, now that we know who wrote the newsletters, will you continue to associate yourself with [author], or will you disavow him and his views?"
Click to expand...

And Ron Paul's answer to that hypothetical question should be "I already disavowed myself from those particular views many times over. As for the person, I believe in the Christian principle of forgiveness."
 
sailingaway said:
No, the thread is fine, although I don't know if we actually want to spread this for tactical reason (that is different than raising a hit piece). I'm just expressing my opinion. He's a friend, kinda, but he obviously wants to advance his career and finding 'new' info on the 22 year old newsletters will do that because other media will swarm in like screaming carrion birds. I'm just saying I don't know if we want to push the information when it comes out.
Click to expand...

Well from my perspective I need this story badly. I get asked the newsletter question at least once a week. Being able to say definitively that Ron Paul definitely did not write the newsletters will be very helpful in getting dems in open primary states to consider voting for Paul. Prior to the latest newsletter scandal I was at about 40% definitely saying yes, 40% saying maybe and 20% saying definitely no. I haven't tried since then, but sensed it wasn't a good time when I was just playing "defense" on the newsletter issue. Plus the initial report that < 5% of the newsletters had any racist content at all is hugely important for backing up the claim that Dr. Paul likely didn't even know about that particular content. Hoping this story will just "go away" won't solve the problem.
 
Why is everyone so concerned with what some nobody local news reporter in Ohio is doing? I don't see the significance here.
 
Ron Paul definitely did not write the newsletters will be very helpful in getting dems in open
Click to expand...

But Ron Paul definitely have written articles (on monetary issues) for his newsletters as he himself confirmed. There are very few people arguing that he has written them.

There are two lines of attack:

1. He does not care what is done in his name (did not know, doesn't care, etc)
2. He willfully participated in race baiting and allowed this stuff to be written in his name

#1 needs to be admitted to a degree to be true, thouhg we don't know all the details. Ron Paul did not monitor newsletter himself, his editor was negligent, or complacent and never brough the issue to Ron Paul until it was raised in the election of 1996.

#2 is hard to imagine and probably should be dismissed the same way as the claims that he have written it himself
 
Ben Swann - "After many hours of hard work and sleuthing, I must announce that there were two contributing authors that the writings in question can be attributed to... Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich." :D
 
I don't think we have to wait for Swann to get the answer. It looks to me like Kirchick basically gave the answer on his own Twitter feed hours ago:
https://twitter.com/#!/jkirchick

In reply to Swann's tweet about his report, Kirchick says, "@Fox19BenSwann Wrong. Only newsletter w/byline is tinyurl.com/723jr2s. Special Issue on Race Terrorism had no byline, in 1st person."

Am I missing something?
 
pilby said:
I don't think we have to wait for Swann to get the answer. It looks to me like Kirchick basically gave the answer on his own Twitter feed hours ago:
https://twitter.com/#!/jkirchick

In reply to Swann's tweet about his report, Kirchick says, "@Fox19BenSwann Wrong. Only newsletter w/byline is tinyurl.com/723jr2s. Special Issue on Race Terrorism had no byline, in 1st person."

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Unless the real reporter here, Mr. Swann, has more information that we don't know about yet.
 
blamx8 said:
Ben Swann - "After many hours of hard work and sleuthing, I must announce that there were two contributing authors that the writings in question can be attributed to... Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich." :D
Click to expand...
After reading thru this thread, I needed that. Props and + rep just for wiping the frown off my face.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

susano
An account of comedy writer who got cancelled for being "gender critical"
Replies
0
Views
302
susano
susano
PAF
Meet Ben Swann
Replies
4
Views
2K
ZakCarter
Z
Liberty_Tree
Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel
Replies
1
Views
2K
Firestarter
Firestarter
Occam's Banana
Trump Attacked Me. Then Musk Did. It Wasn’t an Accident.
Replies
2
Views
667
unknown
unknown
Occam's Banana
The Rise of the Woke Cultural Revolution
Replies
1
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top