Look up your elected representatives.
Bloggers across the net are buzzing about the $4.2 million that Ron Paul supporters brought in yesterday. Many say the sudden avalanche of funds makes it impossible for voters to ignore the man's candidacy. But what about the mainstream media?
How does the story rate over at USAToday.com? Is it the top story?
Nope. Odd, but fair enough. So where IS their coverage of Paul's fundraising?
...waaay down in the lower right-hand column, listed beneath stories with 1/3rd as many comments and a small fraction of its recommendations.
Lesson? No matter how much money Paul raises, no matter how loud his supporters, he's still laregely marginalized as a fringe candidate by the mainstream media. No matter how many times supporters vote on sites like Digg, Reddit, Newsvine and even USA Today, until they convince the mainstream media they're ready to vote for him where it counts-- in the polling booths--the din will continue to fall on deaf ears.
It isn't mentioned because Ron Pauls sudden boost in funding came from unknown sources - most likely from Muslims who want him elected because he said he denies Islamo-fascism exists, and because Ron Paul would leave Iraq today if he was President.
Ron Paul is a libertarian who opposes most government programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Great post. I think this goes to show that mainstream news editors are out of touch with the interests of their audience. Moreover, 'professional' news editors clearly have their own biases/allegiances/loyalties. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, as long as its transparent. Unfortunately, by burying this story beneath content that is far less relevant or compelling, it just shows that there's a lot of room for improvement when it comes to online news. Lets see if we can change this...
Shafqat
Was just reading your blog over at Newscred about 10 minutes ago, actually. Would love to learn more about what you're up to. Will shoot you an e-mail after this. Are you a Ron Paul supporter? What do you see as a solution to this sort of situation?
[...] for Ron Paul. It seems the coverage of this event in the mainstream media was underwhelming. See Brad Flora’s post, which actually does a great job of providing evidence and screenshots from USA Today. Articles [...]
Brad - just posted on the NewsCred blog about this. I don't think there is an easy solution, but media transparency is absolutely key. If a mainstream news outlet doesn't want to cover a story, there is nothing wrong with that as long as they are clear about it and can defend the reasons (burying a story such as your USA Today example shows a lack of free and fair process). However, what's dangerous is when mainstream media tries to hide, ignore or cover up stories. I'm not convinced that this whole Ron Paul situation is a huge mainstream conspiracy. However, I'm more convinced than ever that both mainstream and social news sites (such as Digg) need to be more transparent. If we are to trust the news, we need to be able to trust the editorial and selection process. If 'professional' editors are biased and social news sites have secretive algorithms, they are equally flawed. The latter category provide some hope since it allows real democratization of news. But this is only possible if they are absolutely transparent, which Digg unfortunately is not.
For the record, I am not a Ron Paul supporter, just a concerned citizen. BTW, the first comment was quite amusing.
This site Copyright 2009, Windy Citizen.com - All rights reserved. Content posted by users is dedicated to the public domain.
Designed in Chicago's Old Town neighborhood.
Print
E-mail
Regulators Do What Dillinger Didn't--Shut 6 Illinois Banks