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.'

Ron Paul in Iowa

Michael D. Shear in the New York Times gave Dr Paul a nice write-up yesterday (11 Aug.) -
he noted that Paul is now better known than when he first ran for POTUS, and is on track for what could be a top-three finish at the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames on Saturday. Rival campaigns suggest they believe Paul might actually win the poll, given the strength of his support among libertarians, college students and an increasing number of traditional Republicans who are now beginning to agree with his longstanding criticism of the government spending and the federal debt.
Asked whether he felt a sense of vindication after preaching for years that the country was headed for a debt crisis, he said he wasn't raised to gloat.
So we shall see...Dr Paul brings to the table the fact that he has been proven right about things; this alone sets him above the others. And the fact that he is not making so much noise about it shows a sense of dignity necessary for a head-of-state.

Send out the clowns

The debates in Hew Hampshire got more attention in the New York Times with yesterday's article by Michael D. Shear titled "Bachmann wins over some Skeptics." Indeed, she wins column inches not for any sensible policy, but for the analysis about whether or not she could "appeal to voters beyond her base in the Tea Party movement, while avoiding the gaffes that have sometimes undercut her efforts to position herself as a credible candidate."
As noted in the previous post, attention often goes to those who make mistakes - whilst those with sensible policies get overlooked.
Hopefully the GOP will not go by theatrics, but will note that Ron Paul is the most sensible candidate, the one with a solid professional background and military service - and that he is also the one with the highest degree of crossover votes; Dems and Greens will vote for him, but the likes of Bachman and Gingrich will only see hardline GOP voters (and/or Tea Party voters..)
Bachmann has hired former Reagan man Ed Rollins, and for a pollster, Ed Goeas; both very experienced political activists. However, that does not make up for what she lacks - though I am not slinging mud - she is a capable Congresswoman; who was not in the military and whose professional experience, while good, is limited to tax litigation and some entrepeneurial undertakings. Dr Paul will be a better leader and has more experience in politics to boot, so as a rational human being, I would choose him over all the rest, some of whom may be clowns.