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



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!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I sent it out


... and put it on your Facebook page? And...

... emailed all your friends? And mentioned it on other web sites?

GREAT! Keep going!

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at

Excellent idea

But I second someone else's statement that this would only be effective if there are thousands of RP supporters sending out these emails.

Are you willing...

... to be one of the "thousands"?

If so, let me know at http://otown.com/boycotts4paul.html

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at


I sent you my email ;)


But have you told your friends?

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at


...can only think of one person in my network who *might* be willing to do something like this. I will ask him.

and I would add that...

I think we should also start working together online in groups of ten, each group should have a designated comment board,web page or other responsibilty to cover. That way we can systematically cover alot more ground than we ever could as a disorganized lot. As for advertisers and applying pressure...specific groups can be assigned to work on one advertiser. As for building a larger force, each group would have a team leader, every ten leaders report up to or take direction from a section leader and so forth...I would suggest using a facebook group, where the max is 5000 people. Facebook is best suited for this type of effort for many reasons that I will not list here now. leadership positions should be rotated intially so that members of the group can get an idea of each individual's leadership capabilities, and at a prescribed time, there will be a group vote to select the most capable leader after which the leader position should have a term limit and the groups as a whole maintain the right to hold a recall vote.
This is just my rough draft, I think most of you get the idea...
anyone interested join me at facebook page "New Yorkers for Ron Paul 2012" from there, we will discuss the creation of the group.


I was thinking more along the line of people submitting their choice of the most egregious unfair reporting for the week, voting, selecting the top three, and everyone sending off emails. Someone suggested Youtube videos - and that could be a great way to identify candidates for targeting. Of course, if you wanted to hit other offenders, you'd be free to do so, but the idea is to concentrate fire on a few specific targets and TAKE THEM OUT. Each week, new offenders would be nominated, and voted on and the process repeated.

Look at it from the perspective of the sponsors. If 10 people complain each week to 300 different sponsors, that's 3,000 emails. But what do you accomplish? 10 complaints is essentially "noise". But if 3 sponsors get 1000 complaints, you break through the "noise" threshold and start to strike (economic) fear into their hearts. That's the difference between everyone going randomly after their choice of target, and everyone concentrating fire on common targets.

There are 10,080 minutes in a week. Can you join us in THIS effort for 20 of them?

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at

I get what you are saying but

I get what you are saying but I think you may not be compartmentalizing enough...Target selection should be a separate process.
Imagine 30 groups of ten people covering a wide area of the internet...all these small rags and blogs out there, and then when a big fat juicy target presents itself, they shift priorities and converge.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I am in favor of a more regimented format, there are distinct advantages to having a tighter command and control system than that of mass attack. e.g, redirecting a riot mob or redirecting the position of riot police? which do you think is easier and more effective?

Well... since you ask...

Once again, nothing says you can't do BOTH.

But since you asked, I think the easiest and most effective approach is to select three targets a week and send each of them thousands of emails complaining about their sponsorship of unfair programs. People who sign up could get a message once a week that says, "Our targets this week are... because... view the video at... Here are the email addresses... here are the phone numbers... Bombs away!"

Which is more effective? Bombing of random targets (which the Germans did with their V1 and V2 programs) or saturation bombing of specific targets (like the Allies did in the same war)? . A little damage scattered here and there may be annoying, but it's not debilitating. I don't think there's a major company in the world that doesn't get 10 complaints a week. But 1,000 complaints on the same issue in one week is the sort of thing that overwhelms PR departments and gets attention. 10,000 in a week loses sponsorships and gets personalities fired.

There's a lot of effort that goes to overhead trying to coordinate a bunch of little groups. And all the "electing" and "appointing" tends to lead to focus on personalities, and loses focus on the GOAL. We saw that in the 2008 election where hundreds of "meetup groups" had leaders who wouldn't cooperate with each other. They wasted time, resources, opportunities and the goodwill of their members bickering over irrelevancies. They also spent a lot of time reinventing the wheel. I'm not saying, "this is the only approach that will work", but I can say, "Been there. Done that." If you want to do something different - go for it. Nothing says you can't do BOTH. And good luck to you!

But that is NOT this project.

THIS effort is an attempt to get large numbers of Ron Paul supporters to contribute small amounts of their time on a regular basis to do one simple task: Write a few emails complaining about unfair treatment of Ron Paul. There won't be any regimentation into smaller groups with "captains" and "colonels" or "group representatives". Everyone gets the same say, and when the votes are in - that's it. We spend the 20 minutes we've committed to, and we're done... free to do whatever we want with the other 1060 minutes of the week. Even create little groups with elected or appointed officers.

All I'm asking is 20 minutes a week of your effort to write 3 emails complaining about unfair coverage of Ron Paul.

So... Are you in? Or out?

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at

I'm in. however I still think

I'm in.

however I still think that facebook is probably a better venue. Everybody is familiar with the format, it provides for quicker relaying of info than having an additional website to check into because most of us are there already.

and some of us spend an inordinate amount of time per day on the internet and may want to write more than the minimum.

I hear you on the personality thing thats why my suggestion to rotate people based on abilities should mitigate that somewhat and would float the best people to the top so there would be some redundancy. As I understand it, this will be one website run by you, so what happens if your site goes down, or something happens to your schedule or any number of things that can happen at a choke point. At least using facebook, you don't have to lose time crafting a special website, you can appoint other administrators to help with the work flow and can run 24/7.

another element to FB is that we can see the participants,its a much more interactive experience and could be a morale booster to see the group grow.

Facebook has it's points...

... and might be a good place to discuss strategy. (Have you made mention of this thread on your facebook page? Started a discussion about it?)

But the tool I envision is one that you really don't even have to visit if you don't want to. Each week an email goes out with a list of candidates. Click a link and vote. Or not.

Once the voting is done, the rank-ordered list goes out in an email with all the info you need to modify your own personal mail template. You plug in the information and hit send. Done. As long as you check your email once a week, you'll have everything you need.

As for redundancy and site failure - those are legitimate concerns. But so are concerns that a third-party site might decide to shut you down. Don't tell me that Facebook has never taken an account off-line. (google "facebook account taken off line"). By owning the site, at least there's one less filter to deal with. We don't have to worry, for example, that GE will buy out Facebook and eliminate all discussion of Ron Paul. I'm sure there are lots of people who worked in the 2008 Ron Paul campaign who can tell you about communications being crippled by providers with ulterior motives.

Of course there will be daily backups and the ability to shift to a new ISP or even a new domain within a matter of hours - so even if Romney drops a bomb on the data center, it won't stop the Ron Paul revolution.

Believe me, I want this effort to be as painless and low-effort as possible. I'm serious about the commitment being 20 minutes per week (though I welcome those who want to do more). And while I've been talking about "thousands" of participants because that's "realistic", what I'd really like to see is hundreds of thousands of Ron Paul supporters (dare I say it? MILLIONS) melting down the email servers of news organizations and their sponsors for every violation of fair reporting and scaring the economic hell out of them.

But for now... a thousand people... 20 minutes a week... three emails each. It's a good start.

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at

I didn't mean isolated groups

I didn't mean isolated groups of ten...I meant units of ten being the basic size...kind of like a squad in the military. that tenth person is like a squad leader...and so forth.
in other words create a rank and file online. their efforts can be directed and moved around much more easily and efficiently that using a broadcast method where you are reaching masses of people, mostly friendly but also some foes within that mix, and then hoping that enough of them act upon whatever you suggest. It's just not as efficient as creating a dedicated force, with standard procedures and then rapidly reproducing those systems.

Don't take this the wrong way

Don't take this the wrong way but the only way this will work is if you get thousands of people to actually call and write letters. Prefered tens of thousands.

You have to understand these companies make millions advertising on these networks, if you can get enough people to do it with us and they believe they will lose millions this will work great.

Don't shoot the person trying to help, take my warning with care.

BTW I love the idea.

You are correct!

That's why I'm asking people to indicate interest. No point in me setting the whole thing up if it's less than thousands of people. Waste of my time.

BUT... if Ron Paul supporters can get their collective act together and act as one for at least the 15-20 minutes a week necessary to fire off 3-4 emails, we can swing a REALLY BIG HAMMER. And we can beat the monied interests into providing fair coverage.

So if you think this is a good idea - contact all the like-minded people you know and tell them about this. Put it on your facebook page. Do a mass email to all your friends. Tell everyone you know because, here's the other rather obvious factor: If we don't get a lot of people involved SOON, there's not going to be any point in proceeding. I figure we have maybe 30-60 days to kick this off. It will probably take at least one to three months of hammering sponsors to get enough to crumble to force fair coverage from even the FIRST media outlet. And remember, we're not aiming for fair coverage in the last 2 months of the campaign. I want fair coverage for a FULL YEAR before the election. I want to take them all down by this November. Last time big media set the ground rules. This time around, we need to do that.

Frankly, I think you set an excellent standard: When the first thousand people sign up at http://otown.com/boycotts4paul.html I'll build the site. And if we don't get a thousand people? I won't waste my time because *I* can't do it alone. I need LOTS of help. With lots of little itty-bitty pieces of help each week from thousands of RP Revolutionaries, the Ron Paul Republic can take down the lamestream media.

How hard is it to get 1000 people to sign up? If each person were to get just 3 other people to join, and they each got 3 to join, and so on - we reach 1000 people in under 7 generations. So it's doable. And once we get started, you'll find out how easy it is to terrify local and national newscasters and pundits because we'll be hitting them in a way they've never been hit before - in the pocketbook and at a time when they are vulnerable and critically short of cash. Imagine the impact of 1000 people sending essentially the same email to 3 different sponsors a week. That's 12,000 critical emails a month. You think any sponsors get THAT kind of mail volume complaining about their sponsorship of a show and don't respond?

Nothing succeeds like success. The first victory will bring thousands more to help. And even if they only fire off slightly modified versions of the same email to 3 targets a week - 15 minutes work per week - it will completely swamp out the email servers of the targets and strike genuine fear into their hearts.

Last time, we got blindsided by biased media. We took our lumps and we learned. Now we're ready for the next fight - and they ain't seen nothing yet.

So now it's all up to YOU!

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at

Been doing this for years:

I quit eating Ben and Jerry's years ago after learning that they donate to handgun control. Refuse to go in to a target store because of the way they treated our military families and a few other things.
Include a bunch of companies on my list and in each case,lm I let their corporate heads know about it and assured them I had a long list of friends and family that would be joining me. It is amazing the apologies, coupons, and others things they will do to placate you after that. Not that it matters, because I am a man of my word and will say what I mean and mean what I say, and my life has been just fine without them all. Man I sure did like that death by chocolate too. heh heh heh.

I love my country
I am appalled by my government


What an awesome idea. Count me in.

I will do it. We can

I will do it. We can especially target the ads on the videos, too. It will just be a few minutes of my time to send a scathing email to an address you provide. I am DONE with standing by and complaining. Hit them in their pockets!

Bring it on there will be many others!

They fired the first shot so let put the pressure on. I am sick of their rude attacks!

I'm In! Kill the hand that

I'm In!

Kill the hand that feeds the beast!

I have proposed for four years on the DAILY PAUL...

You use an attack on Ron Paul as an opportunity to discuss Ron Paul's POSITIONS, forcing the media pundit on the defensive.
Also, if you know of some controversial statement made by the pundit, BRING IT UP. I did this to Chris Wallace, also mentioning a VERY controversial statement made by his father, Mike Wallace. Also, take the opportunity to RESEARCH the broadcast company, especially the CEO of the company. Did you know Mitt Romney owns the company that owns the Rush Limbaugh show? These CEOs hate to be outed, and they will do their best to muzzle the "talking heads" if criticism of those "talking heads" leads back to them.

Mitt Romney: Bain Capital and Clear Channel Communications

The company is called clear channel communications, appears to be privately held.
Bain Capital, a Romney company, and Clear Channel Communications: Looks like they are the ones who control the radio shows of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Mark levin. Ever notice how these talk show hosts try to marginalize Ron Paul every chance they get? The life blood of this company is advertisers dollars. Its a place to start anyway.

Isoroku Yamamoto: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping dragon and filled him with terrible resolve"

Its time the dragon re-awakens.

You know what would be fun?

Now it's not in the original scope of this project, but could you imagine if Rush Limbaugh had an entire week where almost everyone who called in was a Ron Paul fan? I mean, sure, they get thousands of phone calls and winnow through them for people who can play straight man to Rush.

But what if the number of people calling to support Ron Paul became so lop-sided in a given week that there wasn't anyone else to talk to? Even if we did it for just one show - how long are Rush's shows? 3-4 hours? Imagine 1000 calls an hour supporting Ron Paul. That's one every 3 seconds and means we'd only have to make 1 call per hour to keep up the rate. What if we each made 10 calls per hour?

Could be fun.

End media prejudice against Ron Paul in 2012.
Signup at http://boycotts4paul.com
or discuss at


Do you have a link to the Romney, Limbaugh thing? That's a big issue.

Great Idea

Go for it. Maybe we also send thank you emails to the good guys on the media and their sponsors.

Just -

DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


A newbie on the Daily Paul posting a good idea and information. It's so refreshing to have someone new who isn't looking to blame or change Ron's supporters for the media's directed attacks.

Sorry Kurt...no troll card for you.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

bigmikedude's picture

Absolutely go for it.


I'm all for taking their ball away until they behave.

I think we need to record them and make Youtube

Videos, exposing their comments, compared to Dr Paul's REAL statements on issues, and what the Constitution ACTUALLY SAYS on the topic. Also, we could add how the Founder's stood on the issues. We have to expose these frauds, by using the own spoken words and how they twist the Constitution to their own ideology, instead of what it actually says, what I call 'Selective Constitutionalism'. They always claim the 'left' are the ones who are destroying the Constitution, while they are doing the same by deceiving the masses, by telling how they are the trusted Constitutionalists. I we can find a way to get large views on the videos, it will force them to comply or lose their rating, thus lose their Fortunes. We need to force these cons to speak the truth or Fail. The problem we have is the 'traitors within' have manipulated the sheeple into looking at the Constitution using idealogies, by using moral issues and other things that seem to be a logical remedy, but are not constitutional. The Founder's created the Constitution so it was very difficult to alter, as Amendments 'were' the only way to change it, which was to prevent 'idealogy' from destroying it. Now, we have elected officials who only care about pleasing corporations, Israel, and social groups who pad their pocketbooks and keep them in power.