Mitt Romney - 4516 31.58%
Mike Huckabee - 2587 18.09%
Sam Brownback - 2192 15.33%
Tom Tancredo - 1961 13.71%
Ron Paul - 1305 9.12%
Tommy Thompson - 1039 7.26%
Fred Thompson - 203 1.42%
Rudy Giuliani - 183 1.28%
Duncan Hunter - 174 1.22%
John McCain - 101 .71%
John Cox -41 .29%
Obviously, Ron Paul did not win. But nor did he come in last - in fact, he came in ahead of Gov. Tommy Thompson, considered a serious second-rung candidate by most of the media.
This underlines the danger of playing games with photographs of supporters and misreporting the results of your own polls, as ABC News has done with Ron Paul. Politics is unpredictable. Ron Paul did better than many pundits predicted. How much better would he have done had his campaign been given accurate, unbiased coverage all along?
ABC and all of our mainstream news media should take this lesson very seriously: don't play games in your political reporting, don't risk thwarting or distorting will of the American people.
I produced an episode of my Light On Light Through podcast about this problem - about 18 minutes long - you can hear it right here.
See also - ABC's Abuse of American Electorate to Be Included in my Curriculum This Fall
and More ABC News Distortion to be Included in My Curriculum
and Newspaper Coverage of Ron Paul in Iowa: B+
but check out the crowd's reation to each of the candidates, as the results are announced...
25 comments:
If anything, I think the level of cheering depicts a balance between how many supporters were out, and how vocal they were.
I'm not sure if the video was cut early, but it sounded like Mitt's crew was large but frail bunch.
Did the Ron Paul people try to get a chant going?
Great piece of footage that I hope gets a lot of mileage. Please excuse me while I link this page to a few places.
That's the way to do it - the internet, in medium and long run, is far more powerful than old-time mass media.
If Paul was allowed to run all out and unencumbered it would be the embarrassment of a lifetime for the rest of the pack.
Who will Win? Who knows. But I do know one thing, the media is losing credibilty faster than George W Bush.
Never in my life have I seen such lack of real reporting, open bias, and down right lack of journalism.
What used to be hard news, just the facts, is now entertainment for the masses. Many are watching and can't believe what they see come across the TV.
Wow Mitt got no cheers I guess he can buy machines votes but not real living talking people. The whole this is a sham everyone knows the diebold are fixed before the vote soon as they are booted. Their is proof everywhere. VOTER FRAUD IS AN AMERICAN ISSUE NOT JUST PARTY
Look at theses old idiots I guess they already own their house and have a nice retirement fund.
But I respect their right to vote for whoever they want and to be as uninformed as they want.
Just sad this is some blowback of a geriatric nation, Scientists wondered what the long term effects would be.
Of a nation turned geriatrics.
Grandpa Simpson voting for the man because of the Turnip Tax of 1815.
Meanwhile his grandson witnesses all the glory of the creeping corporate communism and all the special social benefits that come with that system, like never owning anything of value and becoming a slave to the Corporate State.
"Did the Ron Paul people try to get a chant going?"
I watched first for its announcement on Fox News, but the results were delayed, so I had to sit through an hour of Geraldo Riveria and Ann Coulter with absolutely nothing to show for it, save for some dead brain cells. They would show clips of the room before and after commercial breaks, and it was flooded with Ron Paul signs, and yes, chants (I recall one being "We're not just the internet"). As time wore on, however, people began to sit down, stop chanting, and lower their signs. I later logged into a live feed of Ames and everyone was basically sitting down talking amongst each other saying "Why don't they have the results?"
I wish I could get the video to play.
Vote fraud, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and end this madness.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
WHERE ARE THE REST OF THE VOTES, I CALL FRAUD!!!! LET YOURSELVES BE HEARD THEY CANNOT SILENCE US ALL
RON PAUL in 08 or WE MAKE A NEW POLITICAL PARTY NOW!!!!
GET RID OF THE VOTING MACHINES WITH NO PAPER RECORD
At the founding of our nation media and news was given to the people through openly biased papers and writers. The consumer took what they read with a grain of salt. I think this notion of an unbiased media that we have today does more harm than good. Most people will believe what the media tells them and their claims of being unbiased. Mr. Levinson would you look into the Des Moines Register and their participation in the ABC debates. Their political reporter didn't ask Paul one question in the debate. He also was on TV dismissing him as unimportant.
Obviously, Ron Paul did not win.
Really? It's not obvious to me. But then it's not obvious to me that Bush actually won the elections for preznut either.
anonymous said: "At the founding of our nation media and news was given to the people through openly biased papers and writers. The consumer took what they read with a grain of salt. I think this notion of an unbiased media that we have today does more harm than good."
This is very true, and is still true to today. What should be noted is that times have changed since our nations founding, and today people look to the tube or to the paper with less incredulity and accept what is being said as gospel, when it is repeated over and over. An objective assessment of the press and media by average people has long since evaporated and in my humble opinion is what is most needed.
I'd just like to show that there are SOME news sources that are COMPLETELY unbiased. Take for example our local newspaper here in San Diego, the Union-Tribune. I have scanned in THEIR reporting of the Ames results for you to view in all its glory. Just check THIS out and see if you notice anything interesting in it:
Romney scored 4,516 votes, or 31.5 percent to outpace former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huck abee, who had 2,587 votes, or 18.1 percent. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback was third with 2,192 votes, or 15.3 percent. Rep. Duncan Hunter of Alpine came in ninth of 11 candidates, with 174 votes.
But the biggest loser likely was former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, who finished in sixth place with 1,039 votes. He lad said repeatedly that if he didn't finish in the top two, his canpaign was likely to end. He left the event before the results were announced, and there was no announcement from his campaign.
The missing big names got only a handful of votes.
Former Sea. Fred Thompson of Tennessee got 203 votes. He was on the ballot, though he is not an officially declared candidate.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Guliani received 183 votes, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona got 101.
How about THAT???
www.paulforronpaul.com
Ron Paul's vote total received a huge reaction from the crowd.
Tom Tancredo's received hardly any, even though his total was supposedly larger than Paul's.
I think the ballot counters gave some of Paul's votes to Tancredo (and maybe others) in order that Paul would not finish third.
Good comments, folks.
Last anon: If Ron Paul thinks that there was fraud in the vote counting, he should call for a recount.
I think both Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 should not have accepted the results - Gore should have encouraged Clinton (who was still President) to insist on a recount in Florida despite the Supreme Court's decision (which was unconstitutional) and Kerry should have called for a recount in Ohio.
Just saying that there may have fraud in the vote tabulation is not enough.
Citizen Q: what problem were you having with the video - it's playing ok right now.
Everyone: feel free to post any specific information about media misreporting of Ron Paul here, with as many specifics as you can provide. I'll look into the Des Moines Register and any other allegations of media abuse, with whatever information I can find online...
Yepsen was on a show before the debate and dismissed Dr. Paul. Then writes this after the debate. Also look at the debate transcripts to see the three questions he asked and who he asked them too. See who was "the odd person out"?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5260.html
written by Yepsen
"The odd person out in the discussion Sunday was Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. His attacks on the war in Iraq and GOP neoconservatives are articulate and have attracted a vocal following. But they sound like something from the Democratic campaign. Polls in Iowa show him getting only about 2 percent of the votes of GOP activists, and one is left wondering why the man is still a Republican."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/us/politics/05transcript-debate.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
"YEPSEN: Governor Huckabee, Senator Grassley helped fashion a compromise plan to cover 3.2 million more children by raising the cigarette tax -- poor children. President Bush has threatened to veto. Who do you side with, President Bush or Senator Grassley?"
Dr. Paul was never involved
YEPSEN: Mayor Giuliani, how do you answer -- in Minnesota, Governor Pawlenty, who vetoed an increase in his state gas tax said now he may consider one. Is this Republican dogma against taxes now precluding the ability of you and your party to come up with the revenues that the country needs to fix its bridges?
Dr. Paul was never involved
(APPLAUSE) Mr. Yepsen has a question.
YEPSEN: Governor Huckabee, this issue of tax policy, I see it as a real fault line inside your party -- fair tax, national sales tax, a flat tax, or make adjustments to the existing tax system.
Dr. Paul was never involved
hippo: I just looked at San Diego Union-Tribune, and Ron Paul is there, right after Tancredo -
"Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo has made illegal immigration his signature issue and scored a fourth-place showing with 1,961 votes, while Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who has developed an Internet-driven following, came in fifth with 1,305 votes."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070812/news_1n12straw.html
I guess you were looking at a different, or earlier, story?
PS - It's an AP story - by Mike Glover - and the AP does frequently update and correct its stories.
Mr. Levinson, I must ask what do you think is the reason for the media’s shunning of Ron Paul. I mean, it is no secret that the media is very efficient at social engineering, as it has had a lot of practice over the years to perfect its craft, but to what ends? If it were purely an issue of profit as many have said, then one would think that at least one channel or group of the media would take a contrary position, as that segment would be free of competition. For example, during the lead up to the war in Iraq, many polls indicated that only about 60-75% of Americans were in favor of going to war yet every single media outlet produced pro-war viewpoints in their programming. That left between 25-40% market share to any one media outlet that chose an anti-war position, and in fact the greatest share of all since the other 75% were in competition with many different news agencies for viewers. Be it out of fear of being seen as unpatriotic may have been an initial reason but not after the first year.
Things like immigration, the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, the democratic congresses invertebrate use of its legislative authority, or Vice President Cheney’s life long goal of consolidation of power into the executive branch are either simply not discussed or are framed in such a manner as to diminish the seriousness of the issue. This is not a single media outlet it is every media outlet choosing the same view or message it presents, albeit may be packaged with subtle differences to appeal to varying audiences.
You have engaged in far more study of this so I feel compelled to ask what your opinions on this are, as it is a very much discussed topic among my circle of colleagues and friends. Thanks.
Good question, flip.
The news media constantly watching what the competition is doing. When you go into any tv newsroom, for example, the first thing you notice is a big bank of screens on the wall - each screen is tuned to a different news channel. The producers don't want to miss a story, don't want to be out of step with the other stations...
I don't think the media mistreatment of Ron Paul is a deliberate decision. It was/is more along the lines of: one station sees that the other is not covering Ron Paul, so it does not cover Ron Paul.
The buildup to the war in Iraq, however, was fueld by another factor - not only were the media trying not to be out of step, but in the aftermath of September 11, most people in the media were not acting like tough-minded journalists. I live in NYC, and I understand how they felt - there was a powerful urge to just strike back, and the media were caught up in this, and didn't do enough investigative reporting about the WMDs, etc.
The good news in all of this, though, is the Internet. There are so many voices online, that sooner or later the truth comes out, regardless of what the mass media are doing...
Normally I could buy into the fact that the media has a herd like mentality acting as some single organic entity, but that does not seem to add up considering Ron Paul's huge online presence. Robert Novak, Chris Matthews, Bill Mahre have openly endorsed him and in most cases he has had thunderous applause. Despite that, he is still treated as a leper by most media outlets who try to portray him like Mike Gravel.
As to the press in the aftermath of 9-11, I think we all felt the same for a time (one of the few moments of solidarity in the country in my lifetime) This event and the national sentiment at the time was seized upon to further an agenda that we are still all trying to figure out. Congress like the press, I feel did not do their duty and take a stand on behalf of the people, resulting in the situation today. After all this time, Congress and the press are still reluctant to act against a clear attempt to consolidate the power of the executive and the furtherance of a neoconservative agenda.
A shame that the news departments of media decided to become sensationalists and opportunist, as there is still a large segment of the US and world population that are not online.
The people you cite as "endorsing" Ron Paul are, unfortunately, mostly outside of the mainstream - if Brian Williams or Katie Couric endorsed him, that would have been different - and, I don't think the people you cite have explicitly endorsed Ron Paul (they have said good things about him - that's not, technically, an endorsement).
And, also unfortunately, the media have by and large always been this way - looking at each other for cues - 9/11 just made it worse.
But there are two things to bear in mind: (1) this isn't an all-or-nothing situation - even flawed media can eventually get it right, and (2) the world is indeed going online in bigger numbers - it's just a matter of time until that becomes the norm for news for everyone.
Mr. Levinson, you are of course correct, I misspoke. I should have used the term, advocated instead of endorsed. My apologies.
Although I am not sure I agree with you on the press being flawed or if it is acting or driving to an ends unknown to me. I struggle with the idea that so many people who make up the media industry could collectively be wrong or flawed. I am reminded by this quote:
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
- Richard Salent, Former President CBS News.
As far as the internet goes, well... "Freedom of the press only goes to people who have a press."
Thank you for your insights Mr. Levinson, you do a great service to us all.
Post a Comment