“Ron Paul Ignored by the Media? Not So Much” was the headline on a National Journal post yesterday (12/21/11). “The Texan’s campaign has raised millions of dollars to combat the alleged media conspiracy that, they claim, is out to destroy the candidate the media fears most,” the Journal‘s Sarah Mimms reported. “There is just one problem: The Ron Paul revolution is being televised.”
By Mimms’ count, “since announcing his campaign on May 13, Paul has made 87 appearances on cable television and Sunday news programs. That’s more than any other candidate currently running for president.” She stresses that “he has appeared on Fox News 63 times since June 1, more than any of his primary rivals.”
It’s true that Fox News is an important outlet for GOP candidates. If Paul’s been on Fox 63 times, though, that means he’s been on other TV outlets at most 24 times; how that compares with other GOP candidates, Mimms doesn’t say. (Note: Of course, this doesn’t include Paul’s CNN appearance yesterday, when he walked off an interview with Gloria Borger about the racist newsletters he was publishing in the 1980s and 1990s.) She does acknowledge later down that on broader measures of media exposure, Paul is doing very poorly:
Paul is mentioned on air far less frequently than most of his rivals, including Bachmann and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, both of whom trail him in national and state-level polls. And when pundits talk about him, they frequently do so in a far more negative tone.
It is also true, as his campaign has asserted, that Paul gets less time to air his views in debates.
Here’s a graph from Pew’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (10/21/11) that gives a more informative impression of the relative attention paid to the various leading GOP candidates:
A more accurate headline for the National Journal piece? “Ron Paul Ignored by the Media? Pretty Much.”
Color me confused. Why are there three candidates at 2%, yet the bar for that 2% is unequal in all three cases? Same goes for the two candidates at 7%.
I assume that the figures are rounded off, while the bars are expressing a more exact percentage.
@Roger: Rounding up/down.
My opinion then – that’s poor design. Either the bars should be the same, or the % cited in them should be more precise. Regardless, good article. :)
Ron Paul is known as an honest man. Probably no place in Washington for him, but, he is the only thing the Republicans have right now. And, in my opinion, the only way they can win. At the very least he is calling attention to the real injustices that exist in our political/economic system that touch the lives of the average citizens.
I have a friend who came here from the Soviet Union. In reference to the US and Russia, he says,”I don’t know who learned what from whom.”
For openers, what thinking parent would bestow a son with a name he will have to grow up with that can so often be confused and reverse on documents and applications and other items. RAND PAUL? A homage to the unlamented Ayn?
And what serious contender for high public office would simply walk out of an interview because he or she did not like the questions (or didn’t have a proper response)? Sounds similar like Cheney’s brilliant and contemptuous response to a question: “So?”
Ron Paul knows how to play the game and CNN isn’t going to stop his message of ending wars, auditing the federal reserve, and legalizing drugs thus helping end this Mexican drug war. People may find ways that he is not perfect but he is far and above the best candidate that has a chance at being the president in 2012. We need a real change and he has the backing of the military. This is the real story about Ron Paul.
Eric, Ron Paul has no chance of becoming President. None. And, he has “the backing of the military”? Really? Even if that were true, that’s all the more reason to not want him as President–it sounds like a reference to a Central American “president” who simply runs a country through military force. Not the kind of thin gone wants in a democracy, even a failing one like ours.
I will never vote for Ron Paul. He is not honest as I have already seen with his newsletter problem. I have no idea why some people think he is. He is an old time far right Republican who wants more government not less as far as my body and my rights are concerned. I do not believe so called states rights will protect me from his fellow ideologues and I believe it will weaken our country further to continue with Republican giveaways to corporations which he supports through deregulation. As for drugs, knowing how the far right operates he probably wants to sell you some. I’m not kidding. As for what kind of person he will add to the Supreme Court it makes me afraid. You can fix the drug laws and the Fed bank with out leaving our country a collection of theocratic isolationist fiefdoms. Isn’t his son bad enough for you?
Rick Santorum, Hermain Cain, and Jon Huntsman got about the same media coverage as Paul. So why isn’t FAIR up in arms about their lack of coverage? Wouldn’t Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting also apply to others they disagree with politically? I certainly would think so.
I certainly hope that nobody thinks we’re pointing out the undercoverage of Ron Paul because we agree with him politically. He’s a particularly dramatic example of corporate media abandoning their ostensible standards of who deserves coverage.
Well if you’re upset at the corporate media about “abandoning their ostensible standards of who deserves coverage” why aren’t you complaining about the lack of coverage of the other candidates I mentioned? Are you really mad at the corporate media for not covering the candidates FAIR approves of or are you really mad at the corporate media for not giving lower tier candidates the coverage they deserve? If it’s the latter, then why did you leave Cain, Hunstman, and Santorum out of your blog post, Jim? They were singled out just as much as Ron Paul was. It’s not just a Ron Paul problem. That’s the point.
Well i agree with TimN(sorry Tim)He has no chance at all.And his press will by necessity reflect that.
And the military does not back him in any poll i have ever seen.His foreign policy is simply without an understanding of our commitments in the world, or the balance of power and security.Being a non interventionist sounds good on paper right up until the shit hits the fan..I once heard him in a talk and answer session talking about the days leading up to WW2.He agreed with responding as we did to Sept 7th but disagreed with almost every preparatory move FDR made before the war including lend lease,without which the war may of literally been lost.This is the kind of fossilized thinking that would be just as much of a threat today.A lot of people think we would be better off if we had listened to his council on Iraq and Afghanistan.Maybe yes maybe no.But whenYou apply his constitutional context to known world history it can be a little disconcerting.Outcomes may of been very different.
This isn’t the first time you didn’t understand a basic premise here, ctrenta. Also, above, in a related way, I pointed out what I believe to be a basic fact–Ron Paul has no chance of becoming President. That must mean I hate his guts . . . . Huntsman certainly hasn’t gotten much press coverage, but Santorum and Cain? Really? Where have you been? Anybody who’s familiar with FAIR’s work knows they don’t support any candidate; you’re just looking to justify your simple-minded pre-conceived notions about the horse-race coverage.
IMO. Paul has not so much been undercovered, but has been covered with a surplus of biasm going agaist him. Take Bill O’Rielly for example, he rides him so hard unjustly.