JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,981
- 3,318
- 126
Originally posted by: morkinva
From Journalism.org, media exposure by candidate
for the week Jan 14-20:
look at this chart
for the week Jan 21-27:
click me
In the first graphic,
Mitt Romney received SIXTY FOUR TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
John McCain received FIFTY NINE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Mike Huckabee received THIRTY SIX TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Rudy Giuliani received TEN TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Fred Thompson received FOUR TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Mike Bloomberg, who is not even running, received as much election coverage, as Dr Paul did, in that week.
In the second graphic,
John McCain received EIGHTY FIVE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Rudy Giuliani received SIXTY NINE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Mitt Romney received FIFTY NINE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Mike Huckabee received THIRTY TWO TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Fred Thompson received TWENTY FIVE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Barack Obama received TWO HUNDRED AND SEVEN TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Hillary Clinton was close behind, receiving TWO HUNDRED AND TWO TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul in that week.
Bill Clinton received NINETY ONE TIMES more media coverage than Dr Paul did in that week
This analysis doesn't even take into account that when they DO mention Dr. Paul, words like quixotic, longshot and fringe are almost always included. Is this fair media coverage? Is it an intentional blackout?
As comparison, here's the realclearpolitics average of polling:
Date(01/14-01/22)
McCain(26.2)
Romney(20.2)
Huckabee(18.5)
Giuliani(13.5)
Paul(5.3)
source pages:
http://www.journalism.org/node/9266
http://www.journalism.org/node/9512
well at least common sense is prevailing!!