Saturday, May 05, 2007

Why is MSNBC lying?

As we all know, MSNBC hosted the first Republican debate of the '08 cycle at the Reagan presidential library Thursday night. They also set up a poll at their website to rate the candidates.
They are now interpreting their results to tell us that Romney "won".

But according to the results, he didn't. Why are they intentionally mis-representing their own results?

Exhibit A: The polling results before the debate:

As you can see, even though this poll is unscientific, it does mimic the popular opinion going into the debate. Giuliani leading, McCain second, and Romney third. The rest of the candidates are lost in the background noise. This indicates that the polling is reasonably indicative of the MSNBC viewers.

Exhibit B: The polling results after the debate

Very clearly (with 77,000 respondents thus far) Mitt Romney did very well, but he came in a distant second to Ron Paul. Furthermore...

Exhibit C: The viewers rate the six attributes that determine the victor

Again, Romney did pretty well, but not nearly as well as Paul.

So naturally, if MSNBC is going to point to these results to declare a winner, they're going to point to Paul, right?

Wrong.

In fact, if you troll through the MSNBC debates section, there is no mention whatsoever of Ron Paul's apparent victory at the debate. There's no mention of Ron Paul whatsoever!
The respondents are clearly perturbed about this fact on their message board.

Throughout their televised "analysis" yesterday (yeah, I watched), they mentioned Ron Paul 3 times by my count, and only admitted that he actually won according to their poll once. Not incidentally, they also chose that moment to state that their polling was unscientific. In addition, the few times they did mention him, they framed it as
#1) He did "pretty well"
and
#2) "He can't win".

So all this begs the question: If their polling indicates that Paul actually won the debate, why can't they just cover the news as it is? Very likely, he can't win, but why crown a false victor in their coverage? Why not simply report the results as they are; cover the story as it appears?

It's very evident that MSNBC doesn't want to give Ron Paul any press. Why not? They know that the two things that will kill a campaign are

  • the collective belief that a candidate "can't win"
  • lack of recognition

They are clearly attempting to use their influence to alter the results of the Republican primary process.

Why? I mean, if the Republicans happen to nominate a candidate who "can't win", isn't that good news for Dems? This also raises more questions: How are they interfering in the Democratic primary process through their intentionally skewed and selective coverage? What's in it for them?

And most importantly: Why are we allowing them to get away with it?

Published by: Crimes and corruption

22 comments :

Ahmed said...

MSNBC, BBC, CNN, ABC. i dont trust what they say. if u want more truthful news, watch aljazeera :p

anyway, i think the media in the US is controlled. they let the people watch wat they want them to watch. wats politically correct. thats y i think americans no nothing about wats going on in other countries.

freedom said...

MSNBC had to lie...
Otherwise they would be shut down by neo-con bullies!
Just like how they bullied Virgin America becuase they were going to show loose change on their flights.

FUCK MSNBC!

Landon said...

I was under the impression that America was a democracy. It is not a democracy when we allow the media to present to us only the candidates that they want us see. Apparently the American citizens have the freedom to choose whoever they want to be the president, as long as it is one of three preselected candidates. It is no surprise to me that Ron Paul is facing resistance wherever he goes. He speaks the truth and can not be bought. What a scary prospect. I would say that the fact that media refuses to acknowledge Ron Paul is reason enough for me to get behind him. I have donated to his campaign and I am not someone who gets into this stuff with much passion. Ron Paul is a new type of candidate and he needs the support from the people to keep him from being crushed by the strong arm of the media. Lets get behind Ron Paul and make sure that our voices are heard loudly!

adam said...

when you think about it the 3 people they are "promoting" on all the news stations are McCain, Romney, and Guiliani, and the 3 candidates that have deepest pockets are... McCain, Romney and Guiliani. NBC, ABC, FOX, the Times, Daily News and just about every other form of media in the USA is for-profit media. Basically they interpret the polls in a way that puts the candidates that can pay them the most for advertising space ahead of those who cannot. In eyes of for-profit media there is no truth, just business.

Rick said...

I am so tired of otherwise educated people misusing the phrase, "beg the question." It does NOT mean, "raises the question" or "prompts the question." In fact, to use it this way is an absurdity. One does not "beg" a question. The only sensible use is in its proper meaning - as a type of flaw in logic. It means to engage in circular reasoning. If I say, "Abortion is wrong" and you ask me why, and I answer, "Because abortion is murder," my answer has begged the question, i.e., it simply restates my original premise. That is a logical flaw and that is begging the question. End the madness!

Ryan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ethan said...

It's simple, Folks! Romney's got the most bucks, so he can afford to buy all the news outlets!

Iam said...

The mainstream media are clearly obstructing liberty with reports that lie and ignore news that should be reported on.

They ought to be considered as criminals and enemies of liberty.

stephen.johnston said...

They are lying because historically third party candidates hurt democrats more than republicans.

Godwhacker said...

We are a democracy.... Just like Iran!

Angelo said...

@ Landon, the U.S. is NOT a democracy you tard, its a democratic republic, and the founding fathers established such the nation in such a way as to avoid a great divide between two political parties (sound familiar?).

Do your research next time douche

Brad said...

correction yet again... America is a 'constitutional republic'

A constitutional republic gaurantees your rights to you at birth, and they cannot be taken away from you.

In a democracy, they can be granted and revoked at the whim of popular vote.

Ron said...

FUCK MSNBC. We'll slay those corporate sellouts!

David said...

Actually Tucker Carlson said that Ron Paul won no fewer than 3 times the next morning. "Believe it or not," were his words, and he put almost comical emphasis on "won".

Lindsey said...

I posted this to Digg earlier... It's been buried for some reason.

It's a list of contacts at MSNBC with phone numbers and email addresses.

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Manic_Monday_at_MSNBC_Courtesy_of_Ron_Paul_Supporters

webmaster said...

Start bugging FOX now for the May 15th debates...I told them, "It is hoped that on May 15th you will have the integrity to report who is doing the best in the debates and in your polls even if it is NOT ONE OF THE PRE-ORDAINED FRONT RUNNERS
who have money to pay you."

Yourcomments@foxnews.com

Travis said...

Holy crap man. If I was there I would bust into that MSNBC office and just shoot the place right up. You are right, we cannot let them get away with this. Kill them all!

Jim Lundberg said...

Removed by the author??? I'm suspicious of posts like that!

Ron Paul is the only logical candidate that we should vote for. We need to create our own media outlets. Just think if I were to influence 2 people a day, that would be about 900 people before the election. If only 10% of those passed it on, then I would have influenced at least 1000 people before the election.

twowheelsrule.com said...

MSNBC ranks behind FOX and CNN in ratings, so it's most important that they come off looking respectable. They are still the LameStreamMedia, despite the success of Olberman.
If this were any other subject than politics, they would jump on the Ron Paul numbers as newsworthy - hell, it would get people's attention. But they are cowered by the fear that FOX will say they are foolish for paying attention to Paul.
MSNBC has come a long way and some of its commentators are good. Chris Matthews is too annoying to appreciate, Olberman is great but a tad too emotional, and Scarborough is getting better all the time, despite the regular appearance of Buchanan.

Oh, and Ahmed is right about aljazeera.com

John said...

You should check out the poles now they are 40%+!

Here is a link of many pols and in some of them Ron Paul is winning by 84%!!

www.ronpaulpresshub.com/wiki/index.php?title=Polls

r said...

I'm impressed. A candidate so actively suppressed by corporate media is leading the majority of their own polls. Unfortunately, the media will not so easily relinquish their control. We can expect attempts to "poison the well." It'd be too easy and effective for THOSE AGAINST HIM to produce or COMMIT FOUL ACTS potentially even public vandalism to be ATTRIBUTED TO HIS SUPPORTERS in attempt to convince the public into believing that he is the candidate of kooks and fanatics. The media would then be glad to pay more attention. Hopefully, by warning everyone of the potential of this sort of attack, nobody will be caught by surprise, the public will see through it, and the potential effect will be lost.