Pew Research: Media ignoring Ron Paul

[HalfLotus]

http://www.journalism.org/numbers_re...oring_ron_paul

29% - Percentage of Ron Paul’s campaign coverage in 2011 compared to Donald Trump's

In the days after his runner-up finish to Michele Bachmann in Iowa’s August 13 GOP straw poll, Texas Congressman Ron Paul complained about a lack of media coverage, accusing the press of being “frightened by me challenging the status quo and the establishment."

As pundits debate whether Paul is getting the attention he deserves, a PEJ analysis of campaign coverage this year indicates he is the 10th leading election newsmaker— trailing far behind non-candidates Donald Trump and Sarah Palin and as well as floundering Republican hopeful Newt Gingrich.

From January 1-August 14, Paul has been a dominant newsmaker in only 27 campaign stories. (To be considered a dominant newsmaker, someone must be featured in at least 50% of a story.) That is less than one-quarter of the media attention generated by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (120 stories), who is the top newsmaker among Republican candidates. And he has received 25% as much coverage as Bachmann, the Minnesota Congresswoman (108 stories).

Paul’s coverage also lags far behind Trump (94 stories), who dallied with a run before opting out in mid-May and Palin (85 stories), who has given no indication to date that she will enter the race. In addition, Paul trails longshot candidate and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman (44 stories) and Texas Governor, Rick Perry (33 stories) who only announced his candidacy on August 13.

The only significant GOP candidates that Paul is besting are former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum (21 stories) and businessman Herman Cain (11 stories).

The top campaign newsmaker overall is incumbent President Barack Obama, at 221 stories.

In a further attempt to gauge the post-straw poll attention to Paul’s campaign, PEJ also used the Snapstream server’s closed captioning capability to assess the candidates’ television coverage in the first few days after that balloting.

The sample included the three network Sunday morning panel shows on August 14, the morning and evening network news programs on August 15 and four hours of prime-time cable and one hour of daytime from each of the three major cable news networks on August 15.

According to that analysis, Paul was mentioned just 29 times. By comparison, Perry was mentioned 371 times, Bachmann was mentioned 274 times, and Romney was mentioned 183 times.

Paul's message of liberty and peace aren't what the estrablishment media, Republican or Democratic, want to talk about.

But there was quite a bit of backlash against the favoritism, including Daily Show's scathing bit.

[Darius871]

Who?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Its because he is gay.

[giblets]

Nope, he's not gay so they let him into the Republican debates. Then the media ignores everything he says in the debates.

[-Jrabbit]

He should be a Tea Party darling, but libertarians can be pretty scary and he won't suck up to the Kochs. Plus, he's 76 (Happy birthday, Ron!). If he was a 40-something female, the media would be swarming, and his close 2nd place finish in the Iowa vote-buying poll would be huge news. But his philosophy puts him on the wrong side of certain hot-button GOP issues, like legalizing drugs and prostitution, being notably anti-corporate, etc.

And he looks eerily like Pat Paulsen, a comedian who "ran for president" several times in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

[Ben Kenobi]

But his philosophy puts him on the wrong side of certain hot-button GOP issues, like legalizing drugs and prostitution, being notably anti-corporate, etc

Or it could just be he's been running for president awhile and lost. But nah, it's a conspiracy!

[-Jrabbit]

Your word; don't put it in my mouth. I'm not even a Paul supporter. I'm genuinely curious as to why this is happening to Ron Paul. As you'll recall, I asked this as a simple question in the Perry thread. Your response was basically, "because he's a loser with no chance in the general election." If you're correct, that implies that Fox is, in fact, driving opinion through choice of coverage.

I happen to believe that Fox's editorial coverage - much like their daily talking points and catch-phrases -- is dictated by its executives. Not every issue, not all the time. But there's ample evidence that it happens. And I thought it suspicious that Paul's strong finish in Iowa was virtually ignored. News is news. And as Pew Research notes, this news is being largely ignored.

And BTW, several people have gained the nomination after years of failure. Nixon and McCain come to mind immediately.

[Ben Kenobi]

"because he's a loser with no chance in the general election." If you're correct, that implies that Fox is, in fact, driving opinion through choice of coverage.

How so? Paul's never won. It's not like Paul was popular and because Fox is a meanie, that he's no longer doing well.

Looking at 2008.

Iowa: Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain, Paul.

New Hampshire: McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul.

South Carolina: McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, Romney, Paul.

Paul got 1.5 percent of the total delegates.

You want to know why no one believes he can win? That's why.

[Ben Kenobi]

And BTW, several people have gained the nomination after years of failure. Nixon and McCain come to mind immediately.

Not with 1.5 percent of the delegates in his last go round.

When did Nixon lose a republican primary? He was selected by the convention as Eisenhower's running mate in '52. He won every republican primary that he was nominated in. He won in '52, '56, '60, '68 and '72.

McCain lose in '00, but he was the runner up to Bush. Paul never finished ahead of McCain anywhere, not even when McCain finished 4th in Iowa.

[Kidlicious]

Ron Paul SHOULD be ignored. I'm good with that.

[Berzerker]

so yer good with the media selecting our govt?

[Dinner]

He should be a Tea Party darling, but libertarians can be pretty scary and he won't suck up to the Kochs.

Indeed. He also refuses to legislate religion on people and dares to say we should pull our military back home and cut wasteful military spending. That pisses off the Christian fundies and the defense contractors both of which you need to run a successful campaign as a Republican.

[Kidlicious]

so yer good with the media selecting our govt?

I'm good with them not selecting Paul. I don't care about democracy anymore.

[Berzerker]

but you do care enough to replace the electorate with the media?

[Uncle Sparky]

He's in favour of peace, therefore a TRAITOR !!!!!