Convincing Evidence Re: Ron Paul and the MSM
Posted May 23rd, 2008 by Fed-Up
output
If you haven't seen this video about how the MSM has affected Ron Paul's campaign, please take a look.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
And yet
the comparisons he made leave one wondering...are the increased web searches a function of the increased media or vice verse? Did Dr. Paul deserve more media coverage than McCain, who was doing very poorly in national polls right up until the Media began pushing him? Or perhaps the ability to fund raise should be used to determine political popularity? I think most rational people will agree that the good doctor was given very poor treatment during the debates. In my opinion this treatment reflected the attitude of the overall media.
Faulty statistics. Bloviation.
You can't generalize from internet popularity to general popularity. Regular internet users into politics are of a different mindset than the general population. Because Paul has a lot of internet videos and wins internet polls, it doesn't mean he's popular among the average voters. I take it this guy never took a statistics course in his life. If Paul was as popular among all voters as he was on the internet, he would have been winning scientific polls and primaries. So obviously the internet was not an accurate reflection. This guy makes Paul supporters look like idiots who can't use basic statistical reasoning.
A sample has to be representative of the population, not just the portion of the population that frequents the internet reading about politics.
And what is he saying the media is "lying" about in this regard?
Although I have suspected
Although I have suspected some of BillyDeeisnotmylover's past posts to be trollish, I have to agree with him here, narrowly. This is an unfortunate video, because the argument IS faulty, although his initial premise is not --- the MSM has undeniably marginalized and blatantly ignored Ron Paul's campaign from the beginning, giving him FAR less coverage than he was due. One only has to look at the shameful treatment given him in the so-called "debates", in which he was accorded FAR less time, and chances to speak, than every other candidate. Even uninvolved friends and relatives of mine pointed out that fact with indignation and contempt for the media.
"Due"
It depends on how much coverage one thinks he was "due." Yes, he got less coverage and less speaking time, but others such as Duncan Hunter get even less coverage and speaking time. Alan Keyes, forget about it (who is still running by the way). Most of the media appears to base coverage on scientific national polling results. What criteria do you use to base your judgement on how much time a candidate is due?