43 votes

Ending the Media Prejudice Against Ron Paul

The 2008 Ron Paul Campaign was effectively sabotaged by media bias.

The 2012 campaign is starting out the same way, with most discussions of GOP candidates simply ignoring Ron Paul.

We must change this. But we can't do it by simply complaining. I think we need to fight back in a way that the media conglomerates will understand. Dollars.

Boycotts4Paul.com allows Ron Paul supporters to report newscasts and shows that fail to fairly cover Ron Paul. Once the shows are identified, their sponsors can be contacted with the promise of a lifetime boycott of their goods and services.

Imagine that you are a sponsor of the CBS Evening News. A story about the GOP field runs ignoring Ron Paul and the next day you receive 1,000 e-mails from Ron Paul supporters who promise to boycott your business for life unless 1) CBS News makes immediate corrections or 2) The advertiser pulls its sponsorship of CBS News. This might be followed up by picketing of businesses that don't see the light.

Most businesses assume that for every complaint they get, there are 10 or even 100 people who haven't written. 1000 emails in a day would set their hair on fire. One reason this tactic can be particularly effective is because most businesses are operating on the razor's edge of ruin as a result of the economic collapse. Even a small change in their gross income can make the difference in success or failure. In other words, we have leverage.

At this point, the web site is up and running - but not all features are implemented.

So what do you think? Would you commit to boycotting sponsors who support biased shows/newscasts? Do you think this is an effective approach? How many emails/letters are you willing to write each week to make this happen? I can imagine other tactics - such as dropping off receipts from competing businesses with a note saying, "I would have spent my money with you, but you support unfairness in campaign reporting". I'm sure the Ron Paul community can come up with even better ideas.

I invite discussion here. And be sure to sign up at http://boycotts4paul.com

Thanks!

================
Addendum

At this point, it appears this topic has been fairly thoroughly covered. Many of the recent posts are simply rehashing items already addressed and are generally of the form of:

1) That won't work. (No reason given - just a negative opinion.)
Response: You're entitled to your opinion. Now go away - you're not helping.

2) Media has unlimited money and cannot be hurt by boycotts.
Response: That's why they have entire departments to round up sponsors and why they run so many ads. Because they don't need the revenue.

3) Why don't you do X instead?
Response: Why don't YOU do X? Seriously, if it's such a great idea, go ahead and DO it. We can get hundreds of people to stand around and say, "Somebody ought to do X" and they're collectively not worth the powder to blow them up. You want to count for something? YOU go do something.

4) This is a really great idea! I love it! Let's do it!
Response: Thanks. Just remember to follow through. And tell your friends.

5) I have a question about how this works? or I have an idea to make this even more effective.
Response: GREAT! Please let me know at kurt@boycotts4paul.com I can use all the help I can get!

Any further inputs of types 1-2... Save your virtual ink.
Type 3? Write up all the details of your idea, get people involved and get the project working - on another topic thread.
Type 4-5: Welcome aboard! And THANKS for the help!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You laughed at me in 2007 for this idea

Maybe this time..its just as funny..Or maybe..it could be..right on the mark.
With the rally being held in NYC on the 10th (9/11 Victims against TSA) I suggest signs get made up...Put on your T-Shirts..grab copies of movies, books, bumper stickers, what ever you have an extra of you can spare.
In NY, you got ABC-CBS-NBC-FAUX..oops FOX
They all have those big windows they sit in front of..and you can see the crowds gather outside..and they all send someone outside to talk to the people..so why not gather there early in the morning and start flashing those STOP IGNORING RON PAUL signs??
Get on Facebook-Twitter and put something up about it...And dont stop. If they block you..have a friend take over and start posting something everyday.

I believe in Hope & Change..I Hope the government will Change
Spindale-Rutherford County-North Carolina

Not laughing.

Why don't you organize the project yourself?

But here's a hint: Signs don't just "get made up". SOMEONE has to do the work.

I've got one project on my plate. That's enough.

But why don't you take on the "Stop Ignoring Ron Paul" project?

GO FOR IT!

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at
http://dailypaul.com/165850/ending-the-media-prejudice-again...

An example of vulnerability.

I just read an article comparing Fox News Channel and Jon Stewart's relative popularity. Here's a short excerpt.

While Stewart is on the rise, Fox News had a really, really bad May. Total viewership was down 10%, and Fox News lost viewers in the 25-54 demo in every prime time show. Bill O’Reilly was down 9%, Sean Hannity was down 6%, and Greta Van Susteren dropped 12%.

Just how big is the disparity between Jon Stewart and Fox News?

Only The O’Reilly Factor (2.8 million) drew more total viewers than The Daily Show (2.3 million). Jon Stewart beat everything else on Fox News. Stewart beat Sean Hannity by 246,000 viewers. He topped Bret Baier by 399,000 viewers. Jon Stewart beat Glenn Beck by almost 500,000 viewers, 1.812 million to 2.3 million. He beat Shep Smith (1.712 million) and Greta Van Susteren (1.702 million) by almost 600,000 viewers each. When Stewart and O’Reilly go head to head at 11 PM, Jon Stewart tops Bill O’Reilly’s replay by almost a million viewers (2.3 million to 1.321 million).

Source:
http://www.staplenews.com/home/2011/6/4/jon-stewarts-ratings...

Now imagine you're a senior exec at Fox news and one of the sponsors of Sean Hannity's show calls you up and tells you, "Our email and switchboard are melting down with complaints about Hannity's show. It seems that everyone thinks Hannity's comments last night about Ron Paul were unfair. I've got over 1000 people threatening to boycott our products for life unless we get this fixed by next Saturday. And these people are serious. They're even identifying which of our competitor's products they'll be using instead of buying ours. We can't have this kind of negative publicity."

What do you do?

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at
http://dailypaul.com/165850/ending-the-media-prejudice-again...

Absolutely!

This works if enough folks get involved.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

You are not watching media!

You are watching propaganda. There is still some honest journalism in small town newspapers and radio but most of their news coverage is very local. If by media you are referring to the major MSM players - ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, New York Times, Time magazine, etc. - you are witnessing carefully scripted propaganda for the false left-right paradigm. It's bread and circuses ... dog and pony shows for the sheeple. All of these talking heads as well as all the political candidates (except Ron Paul) are bought and paid for. You are expected to participate in this phony political debate in the same way that the promoters of profesional wrestling expect you to root for the hero or the villian in their show. The difference is that pro wrestling is all in good fun while the politics of our slavery is deadly serious. Ron Paul is a threat to both "sides", to the status quo, to both wings of the same bird of prey because the truth he speaks is treason in the empire of lies. Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate who cannot be bought. The thought of him winning the election is terrifying to the establishment. This is why they marginalize him. No amount of complimenting, exposing, threatening, wheedling and cajoling or any other tactic to try and change the treatment by this "media" is going to change their coverage because you are dealing with propagandists and not journalists. You will see as much Ron Paul in their media as they want you to see. At the present time, they are trying to mollify us with the airtime and ink they are giving our guy. Don't fall for it. If Dr. Paul does manage to gain significant traction in this campaign, the press will only get much worse. Marginalization will become outright attack. The gloves will come off and the knives will come out. That means we are winning!

Hanlon's razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

And one variant which I think it perhaps more applicable here:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by greed."

In other words, the networks spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to get the most money out of whatever they're doing. The principle of greed driving decision-making is the same in government.

Do you think, for example, that most congressmen wake up in the morning and ask themselves, "What can I do to bankrupt America today?"

No. They ask, "What can I do to get re-elected today?"

And so, in the wake of 9/11 and America's uber-nationalist reaction, they came up with two unconstitutional wars as a sop to Joe Sixpack who was insisting that "we get the bastards". A trillion dollars later, as a Nation, we're only beginning to understand the cost. And Joe Sixpack is slowly coming around to understand that dropping bombs means less beer.

The same thing is true of all the pork barrel projects, social welfare spending, health care programs. The congressional representatives are trying to do two things: Buy votes so they can get re-elected, and make sure that accountability for their actions happens sometime after they leave office. They don't have to subscribe to some evil master plan to take this course of action. They are only responding to the demands of the "average" American. Do you think it's any accident that huge healthcare programs (Bush's "prescription drugs" and Obamacare) were enacted just as our Nation reaches a sort of critical mass in aging?

Unfortunately, the "average" American is just that: average. Do you realize what a low standard that is? How many people on this board have an "average" IQ? Probably very few. Odds are that the vast majority of Daily Paul readers are above average. We don't represent the "average" in America. Average people have more important things to do, like watch the latest soap opera, or every sports program on television. They're out doing things like trying to buy fishing lure feathers for their hair (and spending hundreds of dollars for it!) To the delight of phone companies, they're the people who cannot for any reason put down their cellphones, and yet, when talking on the phone, have nothing of importance to say.

Now the same thing applies to television networks. It's not necessary that they be part of a nefarious plan to enslave humanity. All they have to do is follow their instincts to improve the bottom line. That's not to say that some people with great wealth and power aren't pushing some very oppressive agendas. And some of them are in positions of influence over media. But there are limits to what they can do without undermining their own wealth and power. Soros, for example, could go out and buy advertising blasting Ron Paul on every channel for a week. And then what? Be bankrupt? That's not part of his plan. to the extent that he owns interest in media companies, he wants to see profits.

My point here is that viewing the media as a monolithic propaganda machine controlled by evil-doers that is invulnerable to our influence is simply wrong. The problem is that to this point, there hasn't been any down side to spreading lies - or ignoring - Ron Paul. His followers have never gotten together a sufficiently coherent response to actually threaten the profits of companies who pander to the "majority", just as those who have been pointing out for decades that America is spending itself into ruin have never before been able to gather enough mass to force spending cuts.

But times are changing.

And YOU can be part of the change that helps reshape journalism in media.

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at
http://dailypaul.com/165850/ending-the-media-prejudice-again...

Touche!

And well spoken friend! Your enthusiasm is infectious! A boycott is certainly the free market approach to protesting the business environment. To a certain extent, I think that us noisy, enthusiastic Paul fans have already had an effect this go-around. Dr. Paul is receiving much more coverage and respectful coverage at that.

I can't shake the feeling though that this is as good as it's going to get. In my opinion, what we are seeing are grudging crumbs to placate us so they can say "Look, we're fair and impartial. We covered your guy". I still maintain that the mainstream media is part and parcel of the new world order or what ever you want to call it and Ron Paul is not part of that order. Not one in a thousand need be an active conspirator as long as there is a host of willing sympaticos who don't even need to be told what to do. This is why you see so many quizical expressions on the faces of the interviewers. Ron Paul is running to restore the Presidency of the Republic and he would be an anti-President to that order now dominating politics, big business, banking and the press. The MSM will never splooge for Ron Paul the way it does for Obama or Palin because he is not one of them. They will only cover Ron to a point and I think we are near that point.

All this is not to say that I think your idea is pointless or wasted effort. I don't and I commend you for your effort. I'll be glad to help you in any way. The difference between you and me is that I don't hold out any hope of reforming the mainstream media. I think it is rotten to the core and should be ripped out by the roots. We all have our roles to play. If your interest lies in the media, I think you could go a long way towards awakening Joe Six Pack to the fraud of the media. The freedom movement needs pioneers in our own media. You certainly are a gifted writer and have a lot to offer. If we want to compete in the market place, why hasn't anyone suggested starting a Freedom Channel or the Liberty Daily News? Anyway, go forth friend! Do great things and don't let a nattering nabob of negativism like me discourage you. I'm just a very old fart now.

Nattering Nabob of Negativism?

Did you forget, "Hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history".

Welcome back, Spiro T.

You may be right about the media, but I think the evidence points to vulnerability on financial grounds. Look at all the money CBS spent betting that Katie Couric would boost their ratings. Now the promotion is on for Scott Pelley. I doubt the shuffling would be necessary if they didn't think ratings mattered.

And what are ratings? They're an indicator of how much shows can charge an advertiser for a spot on the broadcast. CBS NEWS has been in last place for most of the last decade. They want to boost those revenues.

Now suppose, in the middle of all this angst and hand-wringing and shuffling of talking heads, and re-arranging of deck chairs, CBS' SPONSORS started getting slammed for the poor job CBS is doing covering Ron Paul? I think that's the key. If you complain to the network, you're just a bunch of "nattering nabobs of negativism" and can be dismissed. But when a sponsor starts getting "hate mail" they have to think in terms of taking a hit on their sales - and sales is how they feed their families.

Sure, an info copy of your email to the show would make it clear what kind of pressure is coming down on the sponsor - but in that regard, a little confusion might be okay. Panic sets in when confronted by a force you don't understand. That's a point that can be debated either way, but personally, I think that if the network doesn't even understand what it took to spook the sponsor, that the sponsor's fear (hopefully terror) will be that much harder for the show to deal with... and perhaps push them WAY back from their anti-Paul position.

The bottom line on the project is this: It may fail. It may succeed beyond our wildest dreams. But the only way we'll ever know is to try it.

So all you people who have signed up to help, all you folks sitting on the fence - jump in. Tell your friends. Tweet, Facebook, blog, email, text message or even (I know this is very old fashion, and you might have trouble remembering how to do it)... talk to your friends and relatives about getting involved and get them to sign up.

Strength in numbers.

After all, what have you got to lose? 20 minutes a week against financial slavery for life? Is there really a decision to be made?

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at
http://dailypaul.com/165850/ending-the-media-prejudice-again...

Good point, it's the only reason the Media gives Ron Paul...

...So much attention now.

Sponsor pressure. The Federal Reserve butters the media's toast, but the sponsors are who pays their bills and they can't get by without them!!

You pressure each of their sponsors and refuse to give them an inch advertising wise, they will very quickly become more pro Ron Paul than you ever thought possible.

Such is the ways of a chameleon.

Econ 101

In Economics its commonly referred to as "guns and butter" when referencing military spending and domestic spending. Your comment of Joe sixpacks understanding that dropping bombs means less beer, that's funny and a good analogy.

This might be a lame question...

but haven't people been doing this for quite a while? By just turning the crappy boob tube off. Many of us only turn it on to see those shows when Ron Paul is going to be on. The rest of us just wait for the youtube. And it's not just DPers...tvs are being turned off all over

The effects can be seen in just the fact that Freedom Watch is now seen daily and at a prime time. Also, remember how Glen Beck slowly changed his tune over time (one hopes that it's due to his waking up, but who knows really). In addition Alex Jones has gotten so huge they had him on the View. None of this happened because MSM suddenly loves freedom, but because they love viewers. IMO

#justsaying

_____________________________

Defend Liberty, for Liberty
Vote for President Ron Paul 2012
http://ksa4liberty.com

Not a lame question.

What you're talking about is the glacial progress that comes with the changing of the tide. The sort of thing that will see Ron Paul elected president when he's 119. (Wait. Is that an election year?)

The intent of this project is to bring intense pressure in a relatively short period of time.

Don't get me wrong. Both put pressure on the pocketbook of the media. It's just that one is (IMO) more likely to get results before November 2012.

Networks still rely upon the Nielson families to find out what people are watching. If you're not one of those, then turning off the TV has little effect. True, if you stop watching the show, you're less likely to see the ads and may correspondingly be less inclined to buy the sponsors' products.

But you can elevate the value of your opinion by joining with hundreds (thousands) of people registering the same complaint at the same time in a way that bypasses ratings and the media and goes straight to the sponsors who, after all, pay for advertising in hopes that more people will buy their product - not so thousands of people will BOYCOTT their products... for life.

This is an idea whose time has come. It's a prefect storm. The Country has had 4 years of Obama following 8 years of Bush. We're in a terrible mess - just as Ron Paul warned us 4 years ago (and 20 years ago, for that matter). People are finally starting to come around to thinking he's right. All we need to do is get the message out. Businesses are looking for every revenue dollar. Any sign that a show is doing something "unacceptable" which may cost them business, could result in an abrupt dumping of the show. Television shows are running tight on revenues, especially "news" programs. Newspapers are on the edge of bankruptcy, and news shows - from local news to national news - are searching for relevancy because the internet is eating their lunch. They're all vulnerable in a way they were not in 2008.

While not 100% on point, think of Gilbert Gottfried who was fired for tweeting some tasteless jokes about the Japanese tsunami ( "I just split up with my girlfriend, but like the Japanese say, 'They'll be another one floating by any minute now'"). Think how quickly he was axed. So far as I know, his firing wasn't even in response to complaints - certainly not thousands of complaints. Management simply became aware of the jokes and ... bye, bye Gottfried. AFLAC wasn't even waiting to see if anyone complained.

So even if thousands of complaints to a sponsor don't cause them to drop their sponsorship of a show, you have to know there will be an inquiry. And when the network is asked about what they did, the mere fact that a sponsor is having to deal with thousands of complaints will make the sweat run cold down the necks of the network execs. And that right there is half the battle.

Keep in mind that sponsors are constantly doing a balancing act. Is the advertising we're doing returning enough in additional business to justify its cost? Sometimes sponsors are on the edge of dropping a show. All it takes is a little push to make it happen.

And once we have a record of being able to get sponsors to drop shows, even once or twice, network execs will have difficulty controlling their bladders. That's the sort of success to which Ron Paul Nation will flock. And when the complaints start looking like 100,000 emails and phone calls in a week (completely disabling communications at the sponsors headquarters), it's game over for the networks.

At least, that's the way I see it.

Will we get the thousands of participants we need to make this happen?

I don't know.

Have you signed up?

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at
http://dailypaul.com/165850/ending-the-media-prejudice-again...

Never a lame question about media.

I realize there are few here that actually went to the "talking pictures" during WWII,myself included.I have spent many hours discussing this with my father.He was telling me about what they called the "Serials"."V" for Victory news clips that were showed before every "Talky" movie.Every movie was about heroism,The bad guys,and the fact that we need to "do the right thing" by joining up to protect freedom as we know it for "everyone".Every movie had to be cleared and approved by the military establishment as O.K. to display to the public in the interest of National security.In reality it has all come a long ways from this,We just have to be smart enough to know when we are being lied to and take it as as info in the wrong direction that otherwise could be censored all together.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

This is a very interesting subject

Unfortunatley few people understand the magnitude of the media bias against Dr. Paul. There is a tremendous machine that controls the media in this country along with the banking system and the Intelligence comunity and even our congress. This machine (headed up by the Federal Reserve and there indirect funding of AIPAC) is in complete control of our nation. Add revenues to the media are inconsequencial to there decisions. They must protect their intrest at all cost. That intrest is world domination thru continual war while stealing the worlds wealth thru inflation. Dr. Paul is the only road block in their way. If their media loses money they will just print more. He will be ignored, lied about, smeared and in everyway they can marginalized. Dr. Paul will only win when people realize this and realize this must be a tital wave grass roots campagn that their money and power can not stop.

Does that mean you plan to do nothing?

Or do you have a different plan you are pursuing?

I agree with the notion that far too much control is vested in far too few media owners.

But I strongly disagree that the revenues are not important to television stations. If not for all the advertising, they could not afford to operate. And contrary to your implication, when the local radio or television station runs short of cash, it doesn't just crank up a printing press in the basement and print out more. Taking away their sponsors can have a real and potentially devastating impact to their bottom line. But it's all about numbers. And as I've said, I can't do this by myself. We need LOTS of people to join up to make this a reality.

So are you with us? Of just sitting on the sideline?

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at
http://dailypaul.com/165850/ending-the-media-prejudice-again...

Use these two videos

That's Why they Oppose Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gaTxJfDYhY

Ron Paul: The Choice is Yours

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE5jyNfB9Vg

An idea I can't do (until/unless I win the lottery!)

We've all seen the bias against Ron Paul, but I think statist bias in this country's corporatist news media goes far deeper than that. For a recent non-Ron-Paul example, look at this: http://race42012.com/2011/06/03/debate-inclusion-criteria-wh... Frankly, the media's treatment of Gary Johnson is giving me 2008 bias flashbacks of the most unpleasant sort.

Part of the problem is that "we" don't have one of the self-appointed media "watchdog" groups like the neocon right (AIM & NewsBusters) and the tax&spend left (MediaMatters) own. I think the liberty movement needs one, desperately, to counter the current ones, which (despite their rhetoric) are 100% statist.

It won't be easy [or cheap] to set it up, but the groups I mentioned were all castrated lapdogs rather than watchdogs when it came to the bias against RP last time. They're likely going to show the same attitude to obvious bias against Gary Johnson or Ron Paul this time. These castrated lapdogs are too busy trying to "work the refs" for either tax & spend welfare-state or borrow & spend warfare-state policies to actually do their jobs when it comes to the obvious bias against libertarians, and they don't welcome libertarian media critics like me for that reason. Fine. We can do it without them (the moment I get a bunch of money it's gonna get a LOT easier, though!). :) Until then, the effort won't be quite as organized as I'd like, but things like the Jerry Day Media Caught Lying video show that even one motivated individual can kick ass compared to the lazy castrated lapdogs of media bias. They need some competition before they're EVER gonna resemble watchdogs again, and I plan to give it to them someday. Press on!!

To Promote This Project

Set up an actual Facebook page promoting this project, not just a link to this site. Also have this on the Front Page of dailypaul.com and any other site that will permit it's posting. This is a good idea and can't be ignored and will eventually become a highly powerful tool to help end the bias. Don't get discouraged with 94 volunteers to date. I think that's a fairly good number considering this is only being promoted by way of common links. The message should be easily recognized and create an impulsive desire to assist. That can only be accomplished with having it in the forefront where people perceive it as "mainstream". And we all know the power of mainstream, so we have to counter with our own.

Facebook/Twitter

I think either a Facebook or a Twitter account would be excellent. That way I can get txt's to my phone. I actually think Twitter would be a better idea because then people can "retweet" and spread it to more phones.

Yes.

Unfortunately, no one seems too interested. I emailed Mr. Nystrom, but I haven't seen any action yet.

Conversation with Joη

I was going to discuss this, but I think the email exchange pretty well covers it.

If Joη doesn't want to be publicly accountable for his email, I assume he'll delete it. Otherwise, I think this will probably answer your question as to why this project isn't on the front page.

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:58 AM, wrote:
Joη,

KurtA (http://www.dailypaul.com/user/34871) has sent you a message via your contact form (http://www.dailypaul.com/user/15029/contact) at Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty.

If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at http://www.dailypaul.com/user/15029.

Message:

for front page exposure.

http://dailypaul.com/165850/ending-the-media-prejudice-again... has 29 votes, but doesn't show up on the front page.

Other topics with scores as low as 1 do show up?

How does this all work?

Thanks.
=============

On May 31, 2011, at 0:24 , Joη wrote:

Front-paging is not entirely dependent on the rating system.

I wouldn't be gung-ho to publicize that someone is considering making a website/improving a placeholder site that currently collects...emails...and numbers...and doesn't really inspire me to think this person is going to follow through with their idea.

(Particularly if that someone's second post is blatantly lying to prove a point, or appears to be spamming their single issue on multiple threads, but we can ignore that)

Nor would I expect to sign up somewhere and immediately have my first post get priority publicity.

If you really believe in your idea, invest enough time in it so it clearly convinces others.

There's no lack of good ideas, but of follow-through.

Joη
===========
I absolutely agree that there are lots of good ideas with no follow through.

I busted my ass in the 2008 campaign and the lack of follow through made me reticent to ever make such an effort again. Consequently, the compromise. Show me you will come and I'll build it. If I get 1000 people to sign up, I WILL build the project. If not, well, I was very clear about it up front.

You sound rather jaded - and I can understand that. But if you're stifling exposure just because my approach isn't yours, then perhaps you should reevaluate your own motives.

As for collecting emails and numbers - the only numbers I'm collecting are to gauge commitment, and collecting emails is the least intrusive way I can think of to alert everyone when we're ready to go. You might notice that I don't even collect names. That may come later IF we reach the threshold. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

If the problem is that I haven't spent enough "time in grade", you may have mistaken me for a "newcomer". IIRC, I was posting to the Ron Paul Forums back in 2007/2008 when the Ron Paul campaign needed to have someone announce and coordinate the campaign training classes conducted by Anita Andrews. I was attacked and savaged, called a liar and dismissed... until the national headquarters came out with a statement for all the stupid conspiracy dipshits, that yes indeed, I was setting up the training classes at the behest of the Ron Paul campaign.

That being my first taste of the Ron Paul "discussion" web sites, I wasn't eager to return. And haven't. Until now.

Frankly, I don't have much use for all the talk. I don't have time to spend endless hours discussing a lot of bullshit. I'm here for one reason only. Whether you support it or not is up to you. If you want to check my bona fides, contact Mark Cross, the Florida Coordinator for CFL. He's the one who suggested I try to get people involved through the Daily Paul, because, of course, CFL can't actually be behind something like this (and they aren't).

If your message is that I have to "invest" (waste) time to meet your personal approval, and until such time you plan to stifle the effort - just say so. At least you can be up front about that. Then I'll call you a jackass and we'll be all squared up.

It' just that when I see items appearing on the front page like
- Anyone in Ca.Or.Wa or western Az.Feeling a little strange physically lately?
- Cain passes Paul in DailyCaller Poll
- Dr Paul loves me.

I wonder what the heck is going on with the Daily Paul. Is the focus on getting Ron Paul elected? Or chasing down pointless polls and people's "weird feelings"?

Well?

Oh, as far as the poll goes - are you sore because you got caught? I wanted to see how many droids would run off to do something meaningless, rather than make the effort to do something that matters. I got my answer. The ratio is about 6 to 1. Are you in the 6? Because I'm in the 1.

Kurt Amesbury

=========

And that's where matters stand. During the 2008 campaign, I ran into scores of people who had gotten a little taste of "power" and were drunk on it. I saw meetup "leaders" fighting with other meetup "leaders" over trivial stuff. I saw one guy, very energetic and pro-Ron Paul, who seemed to go out of his way to piss off every politician, cop and "mainstream" republican he could find. And there were lots of people who adopted the "not invented here" approach. If something wasn't their idea, they didn't want to be part of it.

That's why I've never discouraged people from following their own ideas. They may be right! They may have the BEST idea for getting Ron Paul elected POTUS. But I cannot chase all those ideas. I don't have time. That's why I'm taking ONE idea and trying to make it work. I know I can't expect huge commitments from thousands of people - which is why I'm asking for just 20 minutes a week to write 3 emails. If you want to do more, there will plenty of opportunity. Joη's right that there are lots of good ideas that are not followed through. That's why I'm trying to make this a small idea, a simple idea, an idea we can all get behind and execute and see huge returns and grow and turn into victory for Ron Paul.

So there you have it. That's why this project isn't mentioned on the front page.

Incidentally, we've topped 115 signups, I've purchased a new domain registration for the project and there are other efforts to publicize the project in the works. If each person who signed up got just 3 more people to do the same, and each of them got just 3 people to sign up - we'd be over the top with lots of room to spare. So spread the word.

Thanks.

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at
http://dailypaul.com/165850/ending-the-media-prejudice-again...

Joη's picture

*sigh* let's make the conversation public! That'll be fun!

next time, if you want a response...try not insulting the person!

I agree, people fight over really trivial stuff, like whether or not a post appearing for two days on the right column, or the left column, of a web page averaging a thousand-post weekly throughput really matters when one won't even make their own web page convincing until they get an unreasonably large number of people on board.

Sometimes they get things backwards, too: "First they come, then I'll build it"? Seems I'm not alone in this assessment.

Far too often people externalize their problems, and blame everyone else but themselves again, and again, and again, when all life can do is present them with the same lessons until they are learned.

I'm sincerely asking you, based on what I've seen makes something take off, to better demonstrate you believe in your idea to a group of individuals, three of whom I had to inform were the victims of phishing attacks this year alone. With a home page this glorious, it doesn't help.

I'm not attacking you personally, and no one (else) has called me out as being "drunk on power".

All the energy wasted in your reply heaping vitriol (while simultaneously convincing me of your ardor) could probably have been used to improve your project to the point where everyone else will find it convincing, which is what's important.

You've bought a new domain, that's a very good step. I wish you the best of luck. I imagine your purchasing the domain is a tiny admission that how you present your idea is kind of important online. But I'm sure that's just my imagination.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

It is great ideas like these that got me banned from this site

last election a few times for overbumping, I will try to fight the urge, but here is my first one. Ask me some questions so I can keep making replies;).

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Really?

No one has said anything about banning me yet.

Wonder what's different?

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at
http://dailypaul.com/165850/ending-the-media-prejudice-again...

Simple

Don't focus on the clan that owns and controls the media.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

txbluebonnet's picture

Kurta, what is your current

Kurta, what is your current number of sign-ups?

Just shy of 100.

We've got 94 people signed up right now. May be a couple duplicates.

That's not bad... but it's not good.

On the bright side, if each of those people would get 10 more people involved, we'd be home free.

Anyone belong to a libertarian group at school? Can you email them? I've got to think that college students could rack up a dozen new signups overnight.

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at
http://dailypaul.com/165850/ending-the-media-prejudice-again...

Boycott

If you gave me a chart that included video, network, sponsor with contact information. I would email the sponsors that financed biased slander of Ron Paul and carbon copy the network my intention to boycott their products.

Conversely, I would also email advertisers/networks that financed and aired pro-Ron Paul messages of my continued support as a client. I think this is important, we want advertisers not to be scared of Ron Paul, but to relish in the results of promoting Ron Paul.

SEX!

Okay, that's a completely gratuitous subject line, but just watch how many more people show up. ;-)

You are correct that we don't want sponsors to be afraid of Ron Paul. We want them to be TERRIFIED of sponsoring a show that does not cover politics fairly.

Now Ron Paul is the dog we have in this fight (no offense), and clearly we're not going to boycott someone who is unfair to Romney (though how that could happen???) If Romulans want to protest unfair coverage of Romney - good for them.

And it's not just unfavorable coverage I'm talking about. It's LACK of coverage that must also be addressed.

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at
http://dailypaul.com/165850/ending-the-media-prejudice-again...

I fully support your effort

I tried to get support to do this awhile back when Righthaven was hitting Michael and the DP.I'm not sure but I think I was the only one with the conviction to do this.The reasons for lack of support have me perplexed,Too much effort?Lack of willingness to have an inconvenience of lifestyle?Not for sure what the reasons were.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.