New York Times on lack of Ron Paul coverage

Ron Paul was in yesterday's New York Times for the fact that he was not mentioned in the NYT - after coming in a close second in the straw poll; see previous post for details. Michael D. Shear writes:


'Is Representative Ron Paul getting a raw deal in the news coverage of his presidential campaign? 
Jon Stewart, the host of "The Daily Show", thinks so. And so do many fans of Mr. Paul, who have taken to e-mail and Twitter to vent their frustration that his strong second-place finish in the Iowa straw poll is being largely ignored.
"It's absolutely horrendous and despicable the lack of media coverage Ron Paul is getting," one of them wrote on Twitter.
Readers of the New York Times expressed their views on its coverage of the straw polls in a flurry of e-mails. Mr Paul, a 12-term Republican congressman from Texas, lost to Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota by only 152 of 17,000 votes cast.
"We live in a democratic republic, where the votes of the people deserve to be reported by the media, not editorialized into obscurity, wrote Matthew H. Harder.
Richard Timm wrote that "Ron Paul's second-place finish merited much more attention in your article."
"Even if you don't believe he can win the nomination," Mr. Timm wrote, "don't you think it's worth given the only antiwar Republican worth a little more emphasis?"
But some skeptics have pointed out that Mr. Paul's strength at the straw poll seems outsized when compared with his popularity across the country, at least as measured by opinion polls.
Of course, Mr. Paul's followers would say that his low standing in the polls is a result of the failure of the news media to adequately report on his successes at events like the straw poll.

I called the NYT  - 212-556-1234 to get to talk to this reporter, but the voice recognition machine either did not have him on as a reporter or sent me to other people. The NYT  phone maze is hard to navigate, it's as if they want to write hit-and-run articles and then hide from the general public; once a reporter contacted me about a stash of stolen art I was privy to, and when I told him there were Picassos, he was so arrogant the refused to believe me; then it turned out there were Picassos - which had been stolen by the movers, who tried to sell them stupidly in NY.

The NYT has to learn to listen and it would be a better paper; it reports on Michele Bachmann, who got a write up yesterday again for her stupidity - when she remarked on it being Elvis' birthday  - it wasn't - and on Rick Perry - again, for his stupidity - and he got a much lengthier column for saying something that sounded like a threat towards a government official. All the papers covered it, and even right-wingers like John Podhoretz were forced to note how wrong it was.

But when someone acts presidential, reporters ignore it.

I did get through to Jeff Zeleny, who is also covering the debates, and had to call his other number - 202-862-0401. I told him I'd been reading the paper for over 40 years and that they ought to listen to the people who pay their salaries. Next I will email him at zeleny@nytimes.com

So let's see...they missed the Picasso story, even when they were the ones to contact me, hopefully they will not miss the Ron Paul story as well.

Missing: Real News

The press in New York must not like Ron Paul; oddly for this city, it is lavishing its print space on Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann. Michael Barone in the Post  (owned by Rupert Murdoch) writes: 'Some candidates did mention intelligent policy initiatives in the debate.' But does he mention Paul? No. He praises Romney and Bachmann; who are not going to get many votes among New Yorkers. Then he goes on to talk about Thaddeus McCotter (excuse me, Thaddeus who?) for promoting debt-for-equity swaps.
Is McCotter on the House Banking Committee? Did he suggest the fed stop borrowing from the fed and by so doing reduce the debt in a single swoop? Where was Barone when Ron Paul put this forward? Or any of the rest of the press, for that matter?
The New York Times turns a lens on the press when it said in Sunday's paper the following: 'If politicians exhibited some silliness in Iowa, do did reporters. Like hounds to a whistle, they swarmed to Sarah  Palin when she dropped by the state fair on Friday, again rewarding her coyness about the presidential race with extra-rapt attention. She dithers; we drool.'
And you are fools. You mislead the public, whether by accident or by design. The front page of yesterday's NYT one might call an out-and-out lie; it has a line in large print reading: 'Top 3 Contenders Set Sights on Obama and One Another.'
Top 3? Ron Paul was #2 in the straw poll, and only a point behind Bachmann - see the post before this to see why; some would say Bachmann's votes were bogus. But granting her first place, how is the runner-up completely forgotten the next day by so large a news outfit as the NYT? Or are the reporters lost in their silliness, drooling over Ms. Hotlips from Alaska?
The other two contenders they talk about are Rick Perry - who was not even present at the straw poll, and Mitt Romney. And Romney did not come even near to 2nd place. So how is he a top contender?
As to Perry, I think we are in real danger; he was Bush's vice-governor. Not a good sign. He is rather against gun control, having signed measures to make it easier to carry a concealed weapon - he has a permit  for this himself.
But as the NYT reporters Jeff Zeleny and Michael Shear noted in yesterday's article, quoting Senator Charles E. Grassley - 'This is a very fluid situation right now. From here on, you are shooting with real bullets.'

Big Week in Iowa

Jeff Zeleny casts an eye on the GOP antics in Iowa this week. The town of Tiffin is full of the biggies, all waiting to debate on Thursday...which I will miss. The circus may be free but it is not for me.
Although, of course, I am working to get Ron Paul to the White House...it's just that I am not the typical GOP person, and this is not about me supporting the GOP. As Zeleny notes in his article (7 August, New York Times, "Republican Jockey as a Big Week Begins in Iowa"), Dr Paul has 'wide appeal among voters with a libertarian strain...' He then notes the candidate's 'deep support of his core followers', who have been 'encouraged to send the party a message.'
The GOP cannot be unaware of the fact that many of the candidate here are hard core Republicans, too hard core, and cannot win any votes outside of that base. Not that Paul is soft on the major issues - he is anti-immigration, pro-America, and, unlike his GOP contenders, did military time - as an officer in the medical corps.
On the other hand, Paul is more centrist on other issues, such as gay marriage, which he is not out promoting, but has always considered something that ought to be allowed. A non-issue really. And of course the hemp issue seems to put him in the left, or in the Greens - as so many Democrats are MIA on this one, mistaking it for a 'dope' issue - they ought to read. But Paul is an environmentalist, opposed to nuclear power. But against abortion. Some call him a centrist.
Whatever the label, he has the widest base of support of any of the GOPers. So I am not going to watch Bachmann tell me that the White House 'fears my candidacy more than any other' - no, Michele, it probably supports yours as yours has the narrowest support base of any, and you have the least experience of any. Your main issue was gay rights, or the denial thereof.
So it should be interesting, and hopefully we will be hearing more about Dr Paul in the press as the debate turns to real issues. Such as, the economy.

Debate in New Hampshire

This week started with seven GOP candidates hashing it out in New Hampshire, where next year they will return to be picked or set aside. The debate was not much to watch, Gingrich avoided all mention of
his aides quitting, and Pawlenty avoided attacking Romney's health care; and Palin avoided being there at all.
Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg, writing about it yesterday in the New York Times (pp. A1/A12) noted that she was praised by Pawlenty, who noted she was a remarkable leader...will he pick her as a VP? Just saying....
Michele Bachmann made an appearance for the gentler sex, using the occasion to announce her run, and taking a poke at US involvement in Libya - which is now past the sell-by-date, and well past the time it can be allowed to go on without Congressional approval - a strong point with Ron Paul; who was not much mentioned by the Grey Lady, but who, in my opinion, came off the best in the debate, simply by being rational and showing political experience; of which Herman Cain, who runs a pizza chain, had none - but that does not stop him from aspiring to run the US. He came under fire for some of his remarks about Moslems being 'not totally dedicated to this country'.
Sadly, the paper gave more attention to people who had problems, or who did not even show up. So my only regret about Dr Paul's performance was that it did not get its share of attention, but as to his policies, I am sure they will persuade more people than any of the others. We shall see. We're off to a slow start and things will get more intense in the months to come.