It's not merely about Ron Paul Tom. This is about the medias' coverage of all of the candidates. You spent even less time talking about Kucinich.

You DON'T give equal coverage, and you have to realize that things like "name recognition" have a lot to do with how YOU cover the election. You have responsibility, you have not been living up to it, and we, your listeners/readers, have called you on it.

I don't know about a conspiracy, but I do know that every time we elect a leader, or a leader rises, they gets shot in the head.

"And the sky is filled with light Can you see it? All the black is really white If you believe it As the time is running out Let me take away your doubt We can find a better place In this twilight"

Sent by Jody Sol | 2:11 PM ET | 01-31-2008

Ron Paul is associated with a lot of conspiracy nuts, leave it to his fans to blame his poor showing on a media conspiracy.

Sent by N | 2:27 PM ET | 01-31-2008

"When and if he becomes an independent or third party candidate," said Elving, "he may become a far larger factor in the eventual general election outcome. At that point, news coverage will increase appropriately."

So, basically the media will continue to give free coverage to the "front-runners", but Paul has to earn ANY coverage by defying the "polls", which we've all seen are not at all accurate (see New Hampshire). What a ridiculously ill-conceived argument.

Sent by JC | 2:43 PM ET | 01-31-2008

I too am shocked at NPR. I expected the NON mention of Ron Paul at every turn from the Corporate Controlled Media but not NPR.

NPR continually refuses to even mention Ron Paul on the air when discussing the othe candidates.

Ron Paul has outlasted Edwards and Guliani and has won second place in two primaries.

The real experts are your listeners NPR.

Why would you try to discredit what your listeners are telling you?

Yes they are Ron Paul supporters but they are(were) also NPR listeners as well.

Start listening to YOUR supporters NPR or your donations will cease...

Peace

Sent by steve | 4:45 PM ET | 01-31-2008

# 1 LETS TALK STATISTICS, if yu go to NPR-Election you will see literally hundreds of reports about all candidates republica & democrat except Ron Paul who has a single orha article about taking moral rsponsibility for the news letters, so ALL NPR reportors foind nothing to report about Ron Pau but those news letters?donteven get me going.
# 2 When a reprtor reports about an issue & mentions all the GOP candidates' position about that issue (except Ron Paul's position) what do you call that?here are names of SOME NPR reportor who deliberatly ignored on Paul position on issues (I am in the middle of making a whole list about biased NPR reportors with a link to their reports showing how they deliberatly shied away from Dr. Paul.
Adam davidson (the worst so far.. check this link about who want to abolish the IRS
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18050278
Scott hosley
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18409472
Michelle martin
Andrea seabrook
Scott simon

Sent by resimc | 5:34 PM ET | 01-31-2008

It's pretty clear that the national media tells the general population who is viable, instead of the other way around. This top-down information dynamic is hindering democracy. The NYT editorial didn't even mention Ron Paul when explaining why they endorse McCain over the other Republican candidates.

Sent by Seth | 6:32 PM ET | 01-31-2008

The unfair coverage of Ron Paul has made up my mind...

I won't be donating to NPR this year due to their censorship of the truth.

Peace,

Sent by NWO HUNTER | 7:15 PM ET | 01-31-2008

I listen to NPR every weekday for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening during my commute. This is one of the issues that I have had with your election coverage; there is very little discussion of Ron Paul. He is a very viable candidate, and he fully intends to continue to run. See his January 26, 2008 Progress Report on YouTube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=T0nJH6zB9VM).

When other candidates finish in 2nd or 3rd place, their names are mentioned, 'political experts' are interviewed, and a fuss is made. But I heard no mention of Ron Paul in relation to the Nevada primary, nor did I hear any interviews. I only found out his standing from searching CNN.com.

Whenever Edwards or Romney came in second or third their names were constantly being heard. Perhaps if you???d mentioned Edwards as often as Obama or Clintion, he???d actually have been more of a front runner. I thought I'd never hear the end of the discussion of Guliani's campaign in Florida. Now both of them have given up ??? but Ron Paul hasn???t, and I hope he doesn???t.

Sent by Christina Wojcik | 7:35 PM ET | 01-31-2008

In a listing of major polls leading up to the Nevada caucuses (CNN, Mason Dixon, Zogby, etc. - multiple references available), Ron Paul polled single digits in every single poll (except those where he wasn't even presented as a choice). That's been the consistently stated basis for his lack of coverage - low poll numbers. One "small" glitch: all those single digit polls translated into a 2nd place finish that was also not reported (nor was his 2nd place in Louisiana, nor the questionable way the LA GOP handled their caucuses with changing rules, deadlines, etc.). Press: "Ron Paul isn't electable, so we don't spend much time on him." So Ron Paul doesn't get name recognition, nor (more importantly) do his positions become known. And people don't support what they don't know. So their lack of support is used as your logic for non-coverage, and around, and around it goes. Why no coverage either, when he beat Giuliani five different times? Why did Fox keep him out of a debate in which Giuliani was allowed to participate? Not newsworthy? How do you figure. I won't cry "conspiracy." I just look at the facts, and something isn't right. Wait until it's your candidate.

Sent by CR | 8:59 PM ET | 01-31-2008

i hope ron paul stays in until the convention. and as long as those money bombs keep hitting, why not?

Sent by adam schaeffer | 12:03 AM ET | 02-01-2008

I saw a very disturbing you-tube video where Ron Paul says he doesn't believe in evolution. Does anyone know if that is truly his belief? I don't think we can afford another non-science believing nut in the white house. I'm also surprised he's anti-choice.

Sent by Jane | 8:20 AM ET | 02-01-2008

Paul is the perfect example of media ignoring a candidate. He's finished strong in some early primaries, and his views are more in line with the base of the GOP than McCain or Romney. If the GOP wants to call out McCain and Romney for being 'liberals', they need to realize that Thompson is out and Paul is their conservative candidate.

Sent by Jake | 10:03 AM ET | 02-01-2008

Now I hear Ralph Nader is thinking of getting into the race.

Why not? At least Nader can generate interesting copy once in a while. Something Ron Paul can't do. Even Molly Ivins, with all her expertise in covering the wild and whacky of Texas politics, couldn't find much interesting to say about Ron Paul.

Any respectable journalist or media outlet has to be cautious about losing credibility by focusing too much on the fringe element. Mentioning Ron Paul is akin to begging for attention from the insomniacs of the world. Like, wouldn't it be more credible to talk in depth about the candidates who have something of a chance?

So, last night's Democratic debate I thought 'The Hill' was going to lean over to invite Barack into the Family Clinton. Become junior vice president behind senior vice president Bill.

What was more startling is that Barack looked ready to accept the third place position within the family Clinton.

Barack's starting to get that thousand yard stare from the beating he's taking from Family Clinton and the DNC.

Okay, are we looking at Mitt and McCain forming a singular ticket? Give Rudy the attorney general spot to cover New York in the electoral college? We'll see after Super Tuesday.

Family Clinton/Barack against Mitt/McCain...or McCain/Mitt?

Yeah, that's a landslide victory for the GOP.

Make Ron Paul a senate page....and Ralph Nader can be Danica Patrick's V.P.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 11:38 AM ET | 02-01-2008

In reference to the last comment, we need to keep electing same old guy/gals to office because the one candidate who has principles and a record to back it up, appears not to believe in science and is against federal authority over abortion? Please look at the big picture. Ron Paul is not perfect and he's not a saint. The only way to get a perfect match with a candidate is to become the candidate, which isn't possible. So, just vote for Ron Paul, and stop sweating it. Do the right thing.

Sent by Andrew Panken | 11:39 AM ET | 02-01-2008

Well that is just hilarious. When the media (NPR included) decided (without evidence, and with a focus on more celebrity-esque candidates) long ago that Ron Paul was not a viable candidate, the decision was to give him less airtime. Therefore, fewer people even know who he is, much less his platform. So of course he's not going to be as big a hit on the polls....because NOBODY knows who he IS!. I can't begin to expand on the number of republicans I've spoken to over the course of the last six months who either didn't know he was running or just assumed that he had dropped out.

And instead of taking responsibility for getting the best, most accurate, most expansive coverage to the consumers, they flip the chain of causation and say that it was the people who decided he wasn't electable, and therefore made the decision, in response to this, to give him less air time.

This rationalization for irresponsible communication makes about as much sense as me donating to NPR this year It doesn't, and I won't.

Curiously, it is this mentality that NPR and others hold that has hurt the mainstream media. Why pay for 1/2 the story when you can find out the full story for free online.

Sent by Dan Cohen | 12:53 PM ET | 02-01-2008

???I used to (notice well the past-tense) support NPR with my wallet. Now I am ashamed of you.
???Not merely about Ron Paul, MD., Tom ??? Proof: You spent even less time talking about Kucinich.
???Reporters??? discussing all GOP candidate-platform positions (except Ron Paul) is fair and balanced, right?
???UNequal coverage: "Name recognition" clearly deals with how YOU cover the election ??? Proof: Giuliani.
???When he or Edwards won 2nd place, there were dozens of articles on each of them, as well as the 3rd runner???
???Paul Won 2nd in two primaries (5 more wherein he beat Rudy), has the most military votes, breaks national historic voting records even ??? Neither Guiliani nor Edwards did Any of that ??? yet you cover them far more, after dropping out of the race!?! Yet Fox covered him instead of Dr. Paul.
???Rupert Murdoch (owns Fox Broadcasting) is pissed because Dr. Paul exposed his crimes in Congress???is NPR?
???From Elving: only independent / third party candidates ???become a far larger factor in the eventual general election outcome.??? The fact that the Libertarian Party has already given him their blessing disproves that theory.
???Its coincidence that ALL NPR reporters avoid facts on Ron Paul - the first presidential candidate to break voting records while supporting gold-backing currency, the first candidate in 40+ years to question the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve and NEVER vote to raise taxes ??? oh wait, even they admit its UN-constitutional!
???List of further lies, Courtesy of resimc:
???Adam davidson http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18050278 ??? If they are too big to move with precision, how do they arrive at locations all over the world, many times per day?
???http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18409472 see the lies of: Scott hosley, Michelle martin, Andrea seabrook, Scott simon
???We call you on facts. You permit others on your site to label us insane conspirators. Dr. Paul is not Lincoln, Taft, Garfield, JFK (Sr. or Jr.) or Congressman Louis McFadden, much less Warburg, Rothschild, or Aldrich.
???The ???low poll numbers??? theory, that his leads in Nevada, Louisiana and California ??? even with their (literally last hour) changing of the rules deadline ??? is does not explain why you do not acknowledge him when you do others. Directly due to your biased reporting, avoiding mentioning him and his position, more do not know him.
???You even let lies about Dr. Paul???s issues without removing the blog! (Dr. Paul would leave abortion to states.)
???I used to (notice *well* the past-tense) support NPR *with my wallet*. Now I am ashamed of you.

Sent by Military Patriot | 12:56 PM ET | 02-01-2008

It would be nice to hear about things like Ron Paul's huge success and stamina instead of Hillary not tipping well, or what she and Obama are bickering about this week. If nothing else, the arguments are quite sensational and probably keep listeners tuned in!!! :(

Dr. Paul's incredible run so far should merit at least a SMALL story. How many other candidates have to drop out before you recognize him?

Sent by Matt Thacher | 1:42 PM ET | 02-01-2008

I think some of the reason people ignore Paul stems from his supporters fanatical raving about him, they talk about him and his movement as if he is Christ himself and his campaign is the next religion. they talk of his lack of media attention as being "censorship of the truth" and his "Revolution" some of the things people say about him, they way his supporters act, frankly creep me out a bit. it's very odd, they speak of secret underground movements that run the government, and cults that dictate how our leaders are elected, yet the Paul supporters as a whole seem to possess those very same traits. I think people are weary of Paul because his supporters seem just as "brainwashed" as they accuse everyone else of being.

Sent by Nate | 3:24 PM ET | 02-01-2008

Dear National Propaganda Radio..WE the People are tired of your gaudy overtures towards responsible journalism. I learned long ago to attune myself towards the message & underlying motivations of those who control the microphone. I also learned (longer ago) that you can get to know a tree by it???s fruit. It stands that your actions clearly reveal that you march in lockstep with the other MSM in your censorship of Ron Paul. When you aren???t censoring, you slander his message & have the gall to call it news. Now, your guilty conscience forces this slip-shod attempt at winning back the huge segment of fans you???ve abandoned. The reason this backhanded acknowledgement/justification is coming now is because you KNOW the bullet has been fired..you???ve done your part in manipulating the message/masses to a sufficient degree to ensure RP has no chance at the GOP nomination???BUT you still need to make budget so now is the time to court us back to your donation lines. The proof was in the pudding..a simple overview of the MSM collusion against Ron Paul can be seen in google trends : http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+rudy+giuliani%2C+john+mccain%2C+mike+huckabee%2C+mitt+romney (where the top graph shows the overwhelming searches for RP by THE PEOPLE & the 2nd graph shows how you & your den of fellow MSM thieves suppressed him). Other NPR-specific transgressions are mentioned by astute former listeners on this very blog.

You have the audacity to claim RP wasn???t electable? By that distorted logic, John McCain should not have garnered attention either as his campaign was on the rocks last fall.

You know, in the spirit of fairness & in order to give you another chance, I???ll make the following proposal: clean house @ NPR (top-down from your arrogant management to your cowardly reporters)..then, we can recruit some of the 5-year olds at my girlfriend???s daycare to fill airtime. NPR???s journalistic integrity will no doubt increase by orders of magnitude!

Sent by Thomas Braun | 4:27 PM ET | 02-01-2008

My mom and I are not renewing membership to KERA this year for the first time since 1992 because of NPR's despicable non-coverage of Ron Paul. A shame, because we like the membership benefits that give us discounts on opera tickets, etc. I have a friend who is answering phones for the KERA pledge drive today, and she said about 25 people called just to tell them they would not be pledging because of the persistent, obvious exclusion of Ron Paul from NPR's coverage. Feeling the heat now, arent ya?

Sent by Christine | 6:14 PM ET | 02-01-2008

Like some other commentators, I too believe NPR's coverage of politics in general has degraded. I saw a shift in NPR's unbiased reporting shortly after they nearly had their Federal funding cut. While there certainly is no "conspiracy" in the media to ignore Ron Paul or any other candidate, I don't imagine the major media outlets (NPR included) practice biting the hands that feed them. I've stopped listening and donating to NPR because of this shift in reporting. In nearly anything, you need only follow the money to see whose agenda is being pushed.

Sent by Anonymous | 6:47 PM ET | 02-01-2008

Capt. Jas,

Well, that's it. The $300.00 I usually distribute among three NPR stations will now go to the Ron Paul campaign and I will subscribe to satellite radio. Way to go NPR!

Sent by Capt. Jas | 11:07 PM ET | 02-01-2008

The problem with Ron Paul and the Paulettes is that when you get down to begging for votes, that's pretty pathetic.

So far none of the outsourced Paultards who've posted in here have given a concrete reason for casting a Ron Paul vote.

About all you Paulettes have done is suggest fantasy that would go good with a bong and some incense.

Which is cool. When you are doing a bong and inhaling incense. But, unfortunately, even Teddy Kennedy doesn't do bongs and incense anymore. Teddy is more a scotch and soda type guy.

Speaking of which...Teddy Kennedy endorsing Barack is kind of like suggesting joining a Pentacoastal Churche where the ministers kiss poisonous snakes on the head.

Anyway, the media is not so much ignoring Ron Paul as solidifying everyone's opinion that Ron Paul is dead boring. Crying out loud, if anyone could use Tommy Chong for a campaign manager to liven up his image, it'd be Ron Paul. In case you outsourced Pakistani Paultards haven't noticed, Ron Paul is far less exciting than Strom Thurmond on his ninetieth birthday party tirade against minorities.

So, it's not about doing the right thing about a guy who is dull as butter. It's about all the pleading and begging you outsourced Paultards have subjected the rest of us to.

If you are going to do something outrageous, for Pete's Sake, never be boring. That's the Cardinal mortal sin. And you Paultards have been boring to the extreme.

Which makes Ron Paul himself look doubly boring.

The sad truth is that Ron Paul could have done better without your kind of help.

But, then again, what does a bunch of outsourced Pakistanis really know about American politics, anyway?

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 10:44 AM ET | 02-02-2008

Boring you say? Well lets look at that just a little bit.
1: He is the only Candidate who wants to fix our monetary system. Why you may ask? The Fed is made up of private banks owned by the elite. That is not fantasy but real look it up, Oh it is also against the LAW!! Those banks print our money. If the government spends that money in the us and it goes in your account. Lets say $100 then the banks can then lend $900 to people with interest that they set. First let's think about where that other $800 is coming from that does not exist. Hmm. Now lets also think about how the fed, again that is privately owned and is the real power behind our economy has NO government over-site. None, Our government has no access to the international agreements that the Fed makes. Can you start to see the corruption?
Add to it that these same people control the IMF and World Bank. These things are real not a conspiracy.

Thomas Jefferson said something that i believe holds true today.

"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

Woodrow Wilson's statement about the federal reserve after his presidency.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

Does it not fit our situation today? Is that boring?

Lets look what Clinton wants. A mandatory health care system. Mandatory you have no choice. She has stated that she would like it that you will have to have her health care or you can't even apply for a job. Ron Paul talks about civil liberties. Your freedom from the government. Your right to make your own choices and to have to deal with those choice whether they be good or bad. Why should we be told we have to have social security? Why should we be told we have to have Medicare. Should it not be our choice? Should not health care be a matter of choice and not the government tell us what to do.

If control of our economy and your civil liberties is boring then i really don't know what to tell you.

Sent by Tom jones | 2:33 PM ET | 02-02-2008

I will not donate to NPR, which I used to listen to on a regular basis. I am deciding this because I once believed I was receiving accurate and fair information from you. Apparently this is not the case. I am a Ron Paul supporter, I know many that are, and I know many that are not. The point though is that the public deserves the opportunity to make their own minds up, not the media deciding who is electable. Thank you for your time, I do hope you change your tune.

Sent by David Shatto | 3:56 PM ET | 02-02-2008

A concrete reason to vote for Ron Paul as follows. Amazingly from an article on fox new...

here's the quote, then the link to follow

When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.

For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly"

Ron Paul believes in the constitution. Ron Paul believes in this republic and what is best for it. Not in a dated sense that won't work, but in a sense of what is legal and where can we go from there. The people's who created the constitution understood the pitfalls of an executive that is too strong. They understood what could happen if we didn't follow the constitution, that is why they created it. Please read the article, please read his platform, and please make up your own decision.

Also...Ron Paul believes that we should not be in Iraq because it is the congress' duty to declare war and not the Presidents. Therefore we are technically in a Police Action in Iraq, just like Vietnam and Korea. Those both turned out real well right? I'm a former Marine and I spent my time in the sandbox and I believe that I joined the Marine Corps to defend this country from aggression both foreign and domestic. By all accounts Iraq was not an aggressive state and they were actually one of the most pro west states in the region.

Here is the link below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252847,00.html

again, I will not be donating to Ron Paul

Sent by dave Shatto | 4:06 PM ET | 02-02-2008

well- I think that now we are down to four GOP candidates- one of whom is Dr Paul, the media will have to respond to him in some way. maybe that is what this blog is, a way for NPR to slide him in to their front stage.

I will have to say that I agree w/ many post's before me that NPR seems to be just as biased as(dare I say) FOX and the other MSM.

How much stake in NPR doe's the FED have, anyways?

I will not send any more $$ your way.

"In 1974, Congress issued a report stating that the Chase Manhattan Bank's stake in CBS rose to 14.1% and NBC to 4.5%. The same report said that the Chase Manhattan Bank held stock in 28 broadcasting firms. After this report, the Chase Manhattan Bank obtained 6.7% of ABC, and today the percentage is most likely much greater. It only requires 5% ownership to significantly influence the media . This is only one of 300 wealthy shareholders of the FED. It is believed other FED owners have similar holdings in the media. To control the media, FED bankers call in their loans if the media disagrees with them."
http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/FED2.html

Sent by mo | 6:38 PM ET | 02-02-2008

how about on your own page for GOP candidates- down to the last 4.

Huckabee-Last updated 1-25-08

Mccain- Last updated 1-29-08

Romney- Last updated 1-30-08

Paul-Last updated 7-25-07

Who's getting ignored??? well- I cant ignore it anymore.

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore."

At least we can still find REAL news on the web. for now.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12481519

Sent by mo | 6:54 PM ET | 02-02-2008

I used to love NPR. I was the unabashed NPR apologist among those around me.

The way your organization has chosen its favorite candidates, and left the rest in the dust - Biden, Tancredo, Hunter, Kucinich - all largely ignored. Who gives you the right to choose who gets the spotlight? I think it will go into the history books how NPR, a government funded organization, chose to deliberately skip Dr. Paul at every chance - except for any unsubstantial negative blip, which gets diligent attention. The blockbuster events and stories around Paul get engineered out of your headlines, and out of your stories. It is nearly funny to hear your people weave and nearly stumble around even mentioning his name.

NPR sure gave Bush plenty of attention in 1999-2000. Thanks for that. Nice state he's put us into.

You're smart people. You know how people think, and you know that what they hear can determine how they vote.

I believe that every intellectually dishonest reporter, editor, correspondent and producer of any news organization should be held responsible for for subverting democracy.

After many years, it's kind of nice to have the 2+ hours per day of NPR listening to devote otherwise. Donating to NPR used to feel pretty great. Donating that money to those rare, good and wise candidates that NPR labels as "longshots"? That feels much better than I ever imagined.

Sent by Eric | 9:39 PM ET | 02-02-2008

something I've noticed is the massive amount of people that claim they're voting for Ron Paul. why is it that everybody and their brother say they're voting for Ron Paul, the guy is a household name, yet his supporters say he gets no coverage. he must be getting some coverage, you don't get the votes from just about everyone I've ever met as well as become a household name over night without a little press coverage.

Sent by Nate | 9:38 AM ET | 02-03-2008

I will now be sending my NPR donations to Ron Paul to help imbalance his lack of coverage from my radio station.

Sent by David | 11:44 PM ET | 02-03-2008

What few true Conservatives know is that Fox News executives (as of last July) had donated over $40,000 to HILLARY CLINTON!!!!
By December the amount executives at Fox News' parent corporation News Corp. had donated through a PAC to Clinton had reached $93,000, making them Clinton's 20th largest donor at the time.
Despite the fact that Fox News personalities openly disparage Senator Clinton on air; if you consider yourself a true Conservative, you have to ask yourself this question: what do these contributions mean?
One possible answer is that they mean nothing. People in a free country are welcome to support whomever they wish for whatever reasons they choose.
Another meaning could be that Fox News secretly wants Hillary to win so that they can bash her for 4-8 years and increase their ratings to sell more advertising. In that case, it's not a bad investment because there would certainly be plenty to report. Please consider voting for Ron Paul.

Sent by Rick Martin, Buhl Idaho | 12:03 AM ET | 02-04-2008

Dear media pals,

Overall, things are going pretty good. You tell them what to think and why, the proper attitudes and actions, and they show their love by conforming to your mandates and proclamations as though you spoke from the sky! Don???t you just love the power rush? A few words here, a few images there, and the masses stumble from side to side to follow your direction without a clue they are being herded like the unsuspecting sheep they are. How sweet it is!
However, there is a small (but growing) cloud on the otherwise rosy horizon. You have always had to deal with the occasional heretic spouting some nonsense about independent thought, censorship, responsible journalism, blah, blah, blah. But this time there is a growing anomaly that defies your ability to ridicule it away. It refuses to succumb to all the time honored tricks for discrediting UFO nuts, conspiracy theorists, civil rights activists, and other fringe groups who aren???t on your list of approved topics. I might as well get it over with. You know who I???m talking about, that damned Ron Paul bunch.
Do you ever wonder why your efforts to ignore and squelch Ron Paul only seem to boost his contributions and swell his ranks? It's very simple. Your overt bias raises curiosity. Who is that Paul guy and why is he on the stage? When they circumvent your smokescreen and learn for themselves how compelling he is, they are angry that you are exercising your God given right to pervert the election process! They resent your manipulations and get all miffed at a little friendly propaganda! What a bunch of picky bitches!
But please don???t make the mistake of underestimating them just because they???re a bunch of stuffed shirts. They really believe all that silly crap about the constitution, real money, and individual freedom. I know, I know, it all sounds ridiculous and archaic, but they are deadly serious. Even though we all realize that stuff went out with vinyl records and black and white TV, to them it is very real. It is this delusion that makes them so dangerous.
So what can be done? A little condescension might go a long way. Maybe even mention the guy once or twice a day???.without the ridicule. I mean what could it hurt? You???ve pretty much destroyed any chance he had of winning. (A mighty fine job too, I might add.) So at this point, it might be an option. Be sure to run this by your handlers before airing or printing such radical material. We don???t want to see anybody get fired here! You might have to resort to some sort of actual productive work. Yuck!
Another thought that might be even more sedating to his rabid followers: Actually give him some recognition as a ten term congressman with a totally consistent record. I know that that is totally irrelevant to any modern person, but his followers seem to feel it is important, although only God knows why. This technique might even encourage the illusion of credibility among your audience. Again, make sure you clear any such radical action with your corporate sponsors first and explain to them what you are trying to accomplish. Otherwise you could find yourself in deep doodoo.
Anyway the main thing is these people must be disorganized, dispersed, and rendered powerless. Just imagine the horror of them growing to the point where they could actually influence your own job. What if their ideas took hold and you would actually have to leave your desk and really find out what is going on outside your office! What if they were in a position to demand that you actually visit the sites you report on? What would happen to your softball team, your bowling league, and your dart tournament? Better put on your thinking cap media pals, and rise to suppress these weirdos before it???s too late!

Love,
Derac

Sent by D. Crews | 12:20 PM ET | 02-04-2008

Dear Derac,
Beautiful. The sharp truth.

Sent by Eric | 3:22 PM ET | 02-04-2008

"Et tu, Brute?"

Sent by Marvin Henrikz | 4:24 PM ET | 02-04-2008

Et tu, Brute NPR?

Sent by Marvin Henrikz | 4:26 PM ET | 02-04-2008

You will start paying more attention to him when he polls above the single digits??

Uh, ever stop to think maybe most people HAVE NEVER HEARD OF HIM????

And perhaps if his name were mentioned a little more, as a legitimate candidate instead of a "long shot" people might poll differently?

NPR sucks just as badly as the rest of them. I am DONE donating to Public Media. Instead my $$ this year went to the Ron Paul campaign.

He is the only honest politician I have ever come across. Plus he is very knowledgeable. No one stumps him. He ANSWERS EVERY QUESTION DIRECTLY and INTELLIGENTLY. That alone should dazzle the media. That is, if the media were not corrupt.

By the way---I am a 55 yr old female, career federal civil servant, born into and raised in the Democratic religion, the school of tree-huggery and save-the-poor-folks club. Ron Paul's brief message, encountered completely by accident in the first Republican debate, got my attention so well that I researched him and have become a convert(no thanks to the media.)

There may not be a "conspiracy." Maybe it's just that all journalists are blind and ignorant and willing to be manipulated by the public relations spin machines of powerful peoople and corporations. Yeah, NPR too.

I am disgusted.

Sent by Gina from San Diego | 6:19 PM ET | 02-04-2008

Poster fred camorra call seems to be saying that he is more likely to vote for the candidate who is the most entertaining. That is unfortunately a common thing among the American sheep. They are used to being entertained. Can't be bothered to use their brains.

If you really research Ron Paul you may be surprised.

Yeah a lot of his supporters get carried away and look a little wacky. But guess what---they are not all idealistic dopeheads. Some are middle-aged working-class folks like myself who have become disgusted with the general corruption in BOTH parties.

Many of his supporters are military or former military. Ron Paul has more donations from military than all the other GOP candidated combined!!! THAT's a fact. Look it up. Maybe NPR could recognize that as worthy of reporting.

Sent by Javier in San Diego | 6:43 PM ET | 02-04-2008

What would happen to your softball team, your bowling league, and your dart tournament? Better put on your thinking cap media pals, and rise to suppress these weirdos before it's too late!

Love,
Derac

Well, Derac....my softball team and bowling league league members might all sober up and realize that none of them have bothered to vote in the last twenty years, at least.

And it didn't make a dang bit of difference in the world outside of softball and bowling.

As for my blindfolded dart throwing team, they nightly reach Nirvana enlightenment while wearing sunglasses over their blindfolds. Don't worry about them. They are cool with it all in a tantric sort of way.

If you are in any way, shape of form in the mood to discredit UFOs, you're welcome to join Dennis Kucinich in Roswell, as my guest. Should Dennis deign to accept my invitation. See if you can nudge Dennis our way, huh?

As for civil rights activists, did you know that John Quincy Adams was the only president to serve in the House of Representatives after his term in the White House. He was an outspoken critic of slavery. If you haven't guessed, Adams is long dead. But with a little help from my friends, we can have a seance and still hear the Dead President's choice advice. If you are so inclined.

And while you are at suggesting to Dennis Kucinich a sojourn to Roswell, as my guest, why not invite your pal Ron Paul, as well?

On my favorite hunting dog's grave I swear that I will treat both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul with utmost respect during their stay in Roswell, during the annual Roswell UFO Festival this coming July.

The ball is in your court. Get your favorite candidates to come on out to New Mexico (no, not Old Mexico) to get some decent media time they deserve.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 7:45 PM ET | 02-04-2008

Hi All,

In answer to the questions above regarding whether Ron Paul believes in evolution and is pro-life, like many things about his message, he believes that the federal government should let us decide what we believe in.

Accordingly, he believes the federal government should not take a position on either issue and leave it up to the states to decide whether they take a stand on such issues.

Why am I going to vote for Ron Paul tomorrow? Because I am interested in getting back to an America where we do not spend more money than we take in, where we do not force our opinions and leaders on other countries, where American citizens have civil liberties, where America does not torture or hold secret tribunals, and where America does not hold detainees indefinitely or in secret camps in foreign countries.

I think these are fundamentally important things that we should support as Americans and although I did not know much about Ron Paul (thanks Media) until recently, it turns out that he is the only one who is talking about these issues.

The other candidates are preaching change, but most of it is not change that I want or is it change to the fundamental problems we are having in America or with respect to the rest of the world.

By the way NPR, your reasoning on not providing coverage of a candidate is completely idiotic. And, to write an article explaining your rationale makes you truly look like amatuer journalists. If that was what you were going for, congratulations.

I am disguted as well.

Sent by Jeff from Minnesota | 1:45 AM ET | 02-05-2008

Twentieth Century Fox initially considered Tom Cruise for the role of Edward
It is disgusting how the media has influenced this elections thus far. Paul more than deserves fair, acerate and EQUAL coverage. Earlier today I was watching CNN???s caucus coverage (with Glen Beck.... horrible.) He was wining that no candidates have adequately addressed America???s economical problems... That is what Paul???s campaign has been based on!!!!! I though NPR was different than this corporate media scum...

Sent by Jo Kephart | 9:59 PM ET | 02-05-2008

Of course NPR is part of the "establishment media." Just listen to who their corporate sponsors are. Fortunately not all journalists in public media have been corrupted. I first learned about Ron Paul by watching Bill Moyers interview him and Dennis Kucinich on the Moyers Journal show on PBS last October and since then I've been a huge supporter and fan. Get out the vote!! Get out the Ron Paul vote!!

Sent by Melanie | 3:49 PM ET | 02-28-2008