CNBC's Harwood Responds again to our Emails

cable port. I will not bother to watch any NBC inbred network... msnbc, cnbc, tv nbc, WhatTheHellEverNBC, none of them! I'll watch/listen to those who are not blind to breaking news---CNN and NPR from here on out, baby!

After reading all of the comments I wonder if something else isn't being considered here. While we here all know they are biased and full of it I think those people who believe everything they see on TV as gospel will walk away thinking a couple things things...

1. It is CNBC
2. CNBC said "I see his chances of winning the presidency as zero" and therefore must be true.

Along with other negative comments toward Dr. Paul. Again WE know they are full of it but these responses are there for the opposition to read as well as the undecided. So we may view these responses as admission of guilt etc. but those outside of RP's campaign may not.

Hmm.. I am sure that Dr. Paul could snag one of those posts. However, I bet they are already maintained by Republicrats.

www.ronpaul2008.com

To Whom It May Concern,

John Harwood wrote today of some of his reasons why the main stream media does not support Ron Paul as much as other candidates. I would like briefly to comment on some of his reasons. First, the polls. Why is it that we never seem to learn our lessons about polling? Exit polling during elections always seem to tell a different story than reality. Polling before elections generally seem amiss. He recounts Carter, McCain, Hart, Clinton, and Kerry, but then seems to think that polls are a good indicator. Why? There have been numerous reports that many of these polls do not even offer some of the second tier candidates as options to the interviewee. The media also omits the fact that many of these polls have weights that 'correct' the answers based on previous assumptions. These new 'correct' figures then color the future polls and so goes the process. The media also does not seem to question the assumptions that accompany such polls. These assumptions are that the lot of 300 or so people they called adequately represent America. But first, these polls only call people with landlines. Many also seem only to call people who are registered Republicans or have identified themselves as having voted Republican before. Many of Paul's supporters have not voted yet either because of age or because of apathy. Your 'scientific' polls don't measure this.

Why did you not mention straw polls as a reason to gauge popularity? Is it not more likely that people who are willing to attend straw polls are more likely to vote in primaries than the average person? Is it not true that a low percentage of eligible voters actually vote in the primaries? Does this not seem to imply that with Ron Pau's favorable placing in the nation's straw polls that he stands a good chance in the primaries? Why is it that the main stream media doesn't cover very many of the straw polls? There was a straw poll in Nevada just this weekend that Romney thought important enough to show up at. Guess who won? That's right, Ron Paul. Guess who has won every GOP straw poll in NH? That's right, Ron Paul.

Ron Paul doesn't accept money from the corporations and special interest groups like most of the rest of the field. Furthermore, he doesn't need to accept as much money. The other candidates spend millions on focus groups and PR firms. Ron Paul doesn't need any of this. He speaks his message of liberty while the other candidate speaks the message that the focus groups tell them they want to hear. In this case, he can spend more of his money on commercials and the like. It's just silly to compare Rudy's $10 Million with RP's $5 Million because Rudy will spend money on things that RP doesn't need, namely manufactured principles.

It amazes me that the media is still naive enough to think that they are just reporting what the people want to hear. They are reporting, by and large, what the establishment wants to be reported. I do not doubt that you think that you are being sincere, but you only continue to prove that democracy is a farce and an idol of the fascist establishment. Good day to you.

Why fire off a negative letter to Mr. Harwood. Take the time to "thank him" for his insights (and FREE press), then simply choose to disagree. What kind of seed do you think that will plant in his mind for future articles, especially when Ron starts winning the primaries...lol?

Let's make some friends as it is obvious that this "could" be a potential ally vs. foe. Guess what I'm saying is "make lemmonade."

More from Har(d)wood:

"--How do we assess candidates' chances? Polls measure breadth of support (Giuliani has a lot, Paul only a little). The candidates' bank accounts (personal money or money raised) offer another clue to their eventual viability."

According to the Washington Post today:

"Buchanan was barely registering in the New Hampshire polls months before his surprise defeat of Bob Dole in 1996."

So much for polls, sir. However, what about Straw Polls? Why is CNBC ignoring these straw polls? Because the straw poll results don't correlate with their prejudices. Do they think we are stupid? I guess they do.

As to money raised: on that score CNBC should have paid scant attention to McCain, Huckabee, Brownback, Trancedo and Hunter. However, Paul was the candidate they shortchanged in the debate. So, just another distortion, they hope we would accept without murmur.

However, why doesn't CNBC investigate the source of political funding and question what the mega-buck contributors are hoping to get in return. They'll have to conclude that the process is corrupt, but for Dr. Paul who gets his funds from those who nothing but the well-being of the Republic at heart. Such journalistic independence has long been lost as MSM, hence the masses are flocking to You Tube. Cancel your cable subscription and send the cash to Ron Paul.

Here is John Harwood's quote:

"Do we cover Ron Paul less than Rudy Giuliani, just as we cover Dennis Kucinich less than Hillary Clinton? Obviously we do. Do we have good reasons for doing so? I think so...What are the reasons? The same reasons that drive news coverage of all kinds. Some things are covered purely because they are novel and interesting. But most news coverage is driven by what editors consider most important. Candidates who have a strong chance of becoming president are more important than those who don't...How do we assess candidates' chances? Polls measure breadth of support (Giuliani has a lot, Paul only a little). The candidates' bank accounts (personal money or money raised) offer another clue to their eventual viability. So do their electoral track records...Do our coverage decisions forestall the emergence of candidates who could otherwise draw enough backing to win a major party nomination or the presidency? Perhaps a little. But I doubt very much."

I think everyone needs to be careful with this editorial response. Do not simply buy into what he is saying. I think they want you to think that they are fair and representative but they are not and they have good reason to. The Mainstream media is a corporate interest and they will report things that they want the public to hear so it will shape their views of events. Just remember, like they all say "It's a business" and most importantly, they answer to their Wall St investors.

And FYI, they cannot give to much publicity to so called "rogue" candidates. These decisions do not come from the editors. Who does this guy think he is fooling or kidding?! It comes from upper management and the president or vice president of the media company. They are the ones who really control all the information out there. Remember: PRIORITY ONE: serve the Wall St. interests even if it means deceiving the public. This is their line of thinking.

My only quibble is that he did not distinguish equal coverage time, and equal debate time. I understand that some people have more popularity, so Rudy or Hillary will be covered more often, that makes some editorial sense, but that doesn't explain the lack of equal time during a debate, which is designed to compare political views of the various candidates.

I suppose there is a line to be drawn, so that Cox for instance can be reasonably left out of the Debates, but once someone is an established candidate, and you accept them into the debates, they should get fair treatment. Some of the other debates did this, with the red light timers, etc.

They still havent put up the results of the poll nor reported about it on their petty tv shows

I actually thought that his position was well thought out, respectful, and he made his points quite well, and I told him so. After all, he IS taking the time to make his points in a logical, respectful manner. Good show, I say.

www.paulforronpaul.com

I am thinking about writing him. I respect what he has been saying. Do I agree with it all, hell no. But it is a uniquie insight into how things works, as far as a reporter sees it. It is also telling that he feels the need to communicate with paul supporters.

My main question is what determines the amount of time given to each canidate to speak in a debate. I am sure there are several reasons, and I am sure some will turn to conspricy. Which is fine, but I wonder what his take is on why Paul recieves so little time, if not the least time in the debate. Such as the one CNBC just hosted. Further, who the hell holds a debate at 4pm. But mainly, what determines the time alloted to each candidate.

...I really should spell check my postings, sorry.