Campaign Coverage [So Far]

Listen to this 'Talk of the Nation' topic

In the first hour today, we'll look at how media organizations, including NPR, have covered the election.

After the Iowa caucuses, heading into the New Hampshire primaries, reporters, anchors, and analysts relied on data from exit polls that proved to be flat-out wrong.... On Super Tuesday, some news organizations called states before results came in from major cities.... When Senator Edward Kennedy and his niece, Caroline, endorsed Senator Barack Obama at a rally in Washington, DC, images and audio from the event appeared almost everywhere. And there have been complaints about what hasn't been covered: Voters have charged that newspapers and networks didn't cover all the candidates equally. And that questions about issues — including health care, education, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — have been too-often overshadowed by questions about race and gender.

Tom Rosenstiel, who directs the Project for Excellence in Journalism, will join us. Every Tuesday, his organization publishes a report on how the campaign has been covered. David Folkenflik, NPR's media correspondent — and one-time ringleader of the NPR "Media Circus," will chime in from New York. And Lisa Shepard, our new ombudsman, will answer your questions about NPR's coverage. What haven't you liked about how NPR, newspapers, magazines, networks, and bloggers have covered the campaign? And what would you like to see them do differently in the next nine months?

Comments

 

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

The media has been most unfair to Ron Paul. Early in the race I heard Juan Williams say on NPR that there were no anti war republicans in the race. That was a blatant slap at Ron Paul. When Ron Paul raised 4.2 million in one day it got SOME coverage. When he raised 6.2 million in one day it got almost NO coverage. But when Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama raised 3 million in a day that was front page news. When Ron Paul came in 2nd in the Nevada and Lousiana caucuses that got no coverage. The debates have not been run fairly either. In a recent debate Mitt Romney and John McCain both got three times the time as Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Why was the voters time wasted with the "he said she said" back and forth between Romney and McCain?

The day before Super Tuesday the main Nashville paper The Tennessean published a voter guide that listed every candidate EXCEPT Ron Paul. They can't say they didn't know because the campaign had just bought over $6,000 worth of advertising. The excuse? The editor said they just got a wire story voter guide and ran with it without checking it. How sad.

Sent by John Drake | 2:13 PM | 2-11-2008

...and though I hate to have to say it TON has been one of the big horserace culprits in my listening time, as I've let you know. When I have a minute listening in the car I try to tabulate the number of minutes of coverage against the number of minutes spent explaining candidates positions (I exclude time spent stating the name of an issue without analysis such as saying the word 'healthcare' without explaining policy positions).

More often than not, for most NPR programming I listen to, it has looked like "20 mins on the campaign, 0 minutes on policy and issues", "10 mins on candidate x, 0 mins on candidate positions".

I want to know what I'm voting on. The future of the country will be determined by policy, not by campaigning skill.

Sent by Jenny | 2:15 PM | 2-11-2008

First big sensation was Will Hillary run. After Barack Obama announced, for months the MSNBC and Fox stations sensationalized this at the expense of covering William Richardson and Joseph Biden.

Sent by James Donegan | 2:18 PM | 2-11-2008

We are living in Germany and listen to Talk of the Nation each evening. It seems that when NPR does our news at the top each hour and they talk about the candidates...it is Hillary FIRST with a sound bite.....OB next with perhaps as sound bite....and then more than not the Republicans get no sound bites and or comments. Seems in that order all the time. Is NPR pushing Hillary?

Sent by Clarene | 2:24 PM | 2-11-2008

I would like to see the media do in depth analysis of the candidates campaign promises. For example, Obama says he will have troops out of Iraq in 1 year. How will he do that? How many lives will be lost? Will we have another picture like that from Viet Nam of the last helicopter leaving the roof of the U. S. Embassy?

Sent by Ken Pedde | 2:27 PM | 2-11-2008

Not to be done by Ron Paul supporters, I was disappointed with the coverage of Dennis Kucinich.

He earned more votes than Bill Richardson or Joe Biden, but didn't seem to get the respect from the press as either of those "more serious" campaigns.

I heard many times on NPR reporters describing Hillary Clinton as the only candidate running in the Michigan Democratic Primary. Sometimes they used qualifiers, others times not.

Sent by Neil | 2:29 PM | 2-11-2008

the Shuster incident is another case of generational linguistic differences. "Pimp" has come to mean much much more than the old definition of a literal "prostitute peddler" and for your entire panel to express disgust at the word (completely out of context) is to further illustrate the overreaction to language.

Shuster is a "tough" reporter. don't try to marginalize him because he tried to get to the meat of the issue: namely Chelsea Clinton won't talk to the press, but she'll call celebrities and super delegates. what gives?

Sent by Kevin | 2:31 PM | 2-11-2008

What about other races? Senate, Congress, etc?

Sent by Javk Valinski | 2:32 PM | 2-11-2008

Why does the media bring up Clinton's involvement in Whitewater every other week and yet I never hear ANY reference to John McCain's participation in the Keating 5 during the Lincoln Savings and Loan Scandal?

Sent by Lisa | 2:33 PM | 2-11-2008

I heard a report on Morning Edition this morning from Juan Williams in which he discussed the "racial divide" among Democratic primary voters. He pointed out that 80% of blacks voted for Obama in Louisiana, while 60% of whites voted for Clinton. They then played a clip of Obama saying that the media is making race too much of an issue, pointing out that he won in states like Iowa, Nebraska, and Maine where the African-American population is low. Juan Williams then accused Obama of "wanting it both ways" in that he appeals to blacks yet doesn't want to be labeled "the black candidate."

This kind of coverage infuriates me! What exactly are the "both ways" that Williams is referring to? If Obama is "the black candidate", does that make Clinton "the white candidate"? In the same report, Juan Williams also pointed out that Obama does better among well-educated, and young voters. So why focus on race? What public interest does the media serve by casting their coverage in racial terms? It just perpetuates the illusion that race is a substantive issue. The fact is, race as an issue has no substance, so what is the media trying to accomplish by covering the campaign this way? What kind of information does applying these labels supply?

Sent by Joel | 2:33 PM | 2-11-2008

I find the constant breakdowns of polls in terms or gender and race to be divisive and irritating. Especially in this campaign with candidates professing to pull people together.

That said, I have also found comments about Senator Clinton by the mainstream media to reflect the general sexism of people in our society. Chris Matthews comments such as calling her a "ball buster" or her needing a "shock collar" due to her tone of voice and her apparent talent of emasculating (sp?) men are not only offensive but indicative of a broader bias in our society that has not been talked about. I am constantly hearing the most surface, personality based comments about Clinton based on her voice, looks and general likability. These are not comments we hear on the other candidates, especially ones with such a kick ass resume.

Sent by Kari Rittenour | 2:33 PM | 2-11-2008

let's see....Obama and Clinton (both Dems) get about 2/3 of the media election coverage.....hmmmmm....I don't see any bias...what bias?

Sent by Robert | 2:34 PM | 2-11-2008

Why doesn't the main stream media point out when a candidate is blatantly spinning the truth? Do you think it's the media's place to help the public sift through the jibber-jabber?

Sent by Jacob from S. Korea | 2:34 PM | 2-11-2008

I wonder about partisan news coverage like Fox news or the Herald or Globe in Boston. It's like the State of the Union address when the President says that the economy is strong and crime is down the opposition invariably says that the economy is weak and crime is up. Do we get the news from anyone or just the spin?

Sent by Charlie Lownes (rhymes with Browns) | 2:34 PM | 2-11-2008

Unbelievable! I am not a Green Party supporter, but the caller who just called raised an interesting question: why are the news outlets, NPR included, ignoring the Green Party candidacy? One of you deferred to a colleague (not on the air), and Neal, you just ignored him.

Why doesn't NPR report about other options? You are supposed to the news source for educated, aware people, but you are playing the exact same game as the major news media.

Shame on you.

Sent by Michael Haeflinger | 2:36 PM | 2-11-2008

Ron Paul has gotten about ten percent of the vote to date--higher at the beginning of the primary process and MUCH higher in caucus states where voters are actually exposed to his positions--yet has gotten a fraction of one percent of the coverage. NPR News, allegedly a public service, has been right with the mainstream media on this. Over the weekend, the president intimated that Paul was either out of the race, not a conservative, or both. NPR's fact checkers, usually not shy about calling this president on his baldfaced lies, said nothing. They were too busy trying to convince us that when Renee Montaign gets to work at midnight PST, it's 9 p.m. EST--which, by any measure, is misinformation.

Bill Moyers is keeping the public in Public Broadcasting. What has become of NPR I don't know, but I believe we have the right to expect better.

Sent by Anthony Platt | 2:37 PM | 2-11-2008

I think it would have been better to discuss why Green and Libertarian Parties aren't covered, rather than just hanging up on the caller.

Sent by Eric Johnson | 2:38 PM | 2-11-2008

The reason no one in covering the green party presidential primary is that no one including most members of the green party actually cares.

Sent by john smith | 2:41 PM | 2-11-2008

This has been said by many of the callers, but I will add my voice to theirs:

There is to much coverage (time) spent covering the polls and covering the coverage. In my time I need to hear the positions, the records, and the resumes - successes and failures of the candidates. Debate their strengths and shortcomings, and the consequences of the plans they propose.

Sent by Jamie Marshall | 2:42 PM | 2-11-2008

It was inaccurate of David Rosentiel to say the press follows the trend and covers that, rather than leads the political trend toward certain candidates. I listened to and watched all the analyses of the Democrats' debate in late December or early January. Bill Richardson did by far the best job and came across as the most experienced and presidential. I say this as a supporter of Oback Obama. I watched with a group of people -- all who were supporting other candidates than Richardson. We were all impressed and felt he had done by far the best job. We also were all struck by the fact that none of the analysts EVEN MENTIONED HIS NAME after the debate was over. They spoke of Oback being petty when he waid "Oh, Hillary, you are likeable enough"; they spoke of how Edwards jumped in with Oback against Hillary. They addressed the positions of those three relative to troops in Iraq - but not one said Bill Richardson's name ore discussed his positions or performance even once.

Sent by Christine M. - Ann Arbor Michigan | 2:51 PM | 2-11-2008

A caller to today's show (11 Feb.)brought up the fact that Sen. McCain frequently says that he called for Rumsfeld to step down many times.

But as MediaMatters.org reports, he only said that he had no confidence in Rumsfeld, and that it was the president's decision whether Rumsfeld should stay.

Here's the link to the report:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802090002

Sent by Michael Geffen | 2:51 PM | 2-11-2008

Tell the truth guys, as a reporter, that's your only job, and your duty. Feature more minority parties or join corporate america in lying for a living

Sent by Michael A Grace, WMUZ 103.5 FM board operator WAAM news person 2003-4 | 2:52 PM | 2-11-2008

I think that the coverage in general has been well handled. My only problem with it is the sheer quantity and the duration. We are still nine months away from the election and the coverage of the election makes up almost 90% of the media that I read. I am worried about apathy of voters, because of the sheer volume of coverage.

Sent by Sara Perkins | 2:54 PM | 2-11-2008

I have been deeply disappointed in the media's coverage of the candidates for president. Candidate's whom represent real change and speak to the American public with honesty and integrity were completely shunned by mainstream media.

In particular, the media's (lack) coverage of the Ron Paul campaign has been nothing short of shameful. The Ron Paul movement is nothing short of a "revolution" in American politics, and yet the media, NPR included, has virtually ignored the candidate and his deeply dedicated supporters.

I guess the media is so excited about the prospect of either a female or Black presidential candidate, that they have far too little time to focus on real issues such as the the deeply troubled economy, breaches upon civil liberties, and the US's disastrous foreign policy.

Shame on you all.

Sent by Dominic Maraglia | 2:58 PM | 2-11-2008

I think main stream media has lost it's credibility. I have not seen objective journalism as a goal in the coverage of the current presidential race. Media has ignored candidates and significant stories (what would happen if we got rid of the federal reserve and the federal income tax?) Supposed political "analysts" used all seem to have current or past connections to various political campaigns, political players, or political agendas. I have found the debates to be unfairly slanted towards declared front runners before the public has even had a chance to hear all the candidates and their views in any meaningful way. I'm tired of hearing news based on polls. I personally have never participated in a poll, and find that they rarely are reflective of my concerns or positions. I think current media has exposed themselves as being more concerned about generating entertainment and advertising dollars than with providing objective journalism that could help move this country forward.

Sent by Cheryl Hosking | 3:06 PM | 2-11-2008

The media coverage has been ridiculous during this Presidential Campaign. The media is DICTATING to the American people who the Corporates they work for want. Plain and simple. In the Republican Party you have a pro-war (thus pro military-industrial complex) who is willing to fight for 100 years! That is who "they" want as President... But "they" are not the American People -who are FINALLY waking up and seeing what's going on - "they", the American People, want someone who can change that. So then the MEDIA gives them Obama - but Obama, as well spoken as he is and very Hollywood like, speaks about change - but what REAL CHANGE? There is none from him. But the bigwigs feed you him because they are giving you a "little" taste of something - athough there is nothing really there. That is what the American People want to hear. BUT there is one candidate who speaks "for" the American People and that one person is Ron Paul. He calls out all these Corporate, Money-Hungry, Big Wigs and says "they" gotta go (and this time "they" are the bad guys - oh and just to clarify more incase this somehow gets twisted out of context, the bad guys are NOT the American People"). But "they" don't want the American People to really hear about the message that Ron Paul is giving to them - because that would end "their" control over you. So what do "they" do? They call him a "nut", a "whack-o", "unelectable", and that his followers are crazy, nutjobs,etc.. etc... etc... They twist his words to make him sound unpatritic, when in deed he is the ONLY true patriotic person running for President. He doesn't want to "run" your life - run your own life - he wants to defend your borders and give you your freedom back. Ask the other candidates if they are willing to do this too? Ron Paul speaks about the only way to get stronger and to have "true freedom" is to LIMIT government, cut spending, change Foreign Policy back to the way The Constitution intended it to be, and to keep the money you work for and ABOLISH the IRS and The Federal Reserve. Critics (who gets all their information from the Main Stream Media) don't realize how truly good for America this would be. Defend your own borders = why are you defending Japan? Iraq? South Korea? Europe? Israel? and the other 155 countries I didn't name here - perhaps if the same man power was on Americas own borders then maybe Sept. 11th would never have happened, or maybe they would be bold enough to hijack planes but they would have never caused the devastation they did. But why does the media choose to censor such an honest man who is trying to save the American People - not just against enemies foreign - but against enemies domestic, within their own government? There is a North American Union underway, I am Canadian and I see the EXACT same thing happening in MY country as I do in yours. I truly believe if America can be saved so can Canada - afterall you are the most powerful nation in the world well you once were, at least you are militarily but that's it. You're not financially anymore, and bc of the intrusive foreign policy you have, many people in many countries all over the world have a hate for America, and its NOT because you're FREE because we here in Canada are FREE but they didn't attack us! Its like Ron Paul said it's because the US military have bases ALL over the world and people are hating this intrusiveness on their land. But I still believe in America and I believe if ANYONE can change and open the eyes of millions of people world wide - then America can - but only if Ron Pauls message gets to be heard - FAIRLY! And its not.
So no, the media coverage was NOT fair. And not just for Ron Paul, but for many others too who were running for president and bowed out bc they got no backing by big corporates, and no media coverage as well, luckily for Ron Paul when he was in the debates he kicked ass and people responded and donated like hell to get him elected. But only the people who weren't lazy enough to get off their couches and google Ron Paul became actively involved. The other LARGE percentage of Americans who just listen to the main stream media, never really got behind Ron Paul because they were listening to the commentators and so-called experts telling them that he is a kook and unelectable, and like the good little sheep that they are, they listen. It would be nice to just report the news and give "fair and balanced" information about the candidates and not their own politically motivated commentary! The ONLY truth available now is the internet and that is something else the government wants to control, which Ron Paul is opposed too. God help us all.

Sent by makmadden | 3:12 PM | 2-11-2008

They could mention Ron Paul once in awhile. He HAS been unfairly marginalized by media outlets like CNN & MSNBC. FOX has done several "slash job," attempts on Paul. Shame on NPR for joining in on this blatant audience manipulation. 'Yes YOU HAVE...don't deny it!!

Sent by Jen | 3:45 PM | 2-11-2008

I think in discussing the candidates, not enough attention has been paid to the left-handed vote. As a minority, should they not be pitted against others? Are left-handed women torn because Obama is left-handed and Clinton is a woman? Can Obama beat the right-handed McCain, considering that so much of the populace is right-handed?

I tire of the media segmented us into groups which are supposed to have conflicting needs. Young vs old. Black vs Latino. Upscale vs "downscale" (why is it ok to refer to someone as "downscale"?) Our similarities far outweigh our differences.

Incidentally, I am right-handed, and I support Obama.

Kevin
Golden, CO

Sent by Kevin G McManus | 4:49 PM | 2-11-2008

NPR, surprisingly, insists on repeatedly characterizing this election as one based on race. Other than in a few southern states with a reputation for abiding racism, Mr. Obama has had no difficulty attracting white voters, including women (Washington) and working class voters (Maine. NPR's conclusions about race-motivated voters does not take these elections into account. How can NPR ignore Obama's wide margins in states like Iowa, Maine, Idaho, and North Dakota? Where are the African-American voters who are purportedly carrying him in those states? And in Kansas and Nebraska? This is not responsible reporting.

Sent by Pamela Vanderpool | 8:51 PM | 2-11-2008

I really expected NPR of all news organizations to have covered Congressman Dr. Ron Paul. You know this election is important... you know we finally have a really novel choice in him. These divergent takes on real issues and the spin versus the straight talk... that's news! I withdrew my support of NPR and will not return as a member due to your atrocious coverage (non-coverage) of who I feel is the intelligent person's candidate. I guess there really is no intelligent person's news agency in the United States. So my funds will go to his campaign instead and I'll search the internet for my information and use Dr. Stanley Milgram's proven methods of spreading the message of who to write in. Don't worry we won't be tuning in and supporting you even once you admit the wrong you have done and possible harm. Can free speech and free censorship be a form of treason?

Sent by Thomas Paine | 9:27 PM | 2-11-2008

It is times like these that I lament that I cannot withhold support for NPR without withholding support for my local station. NPR is no better than the rest of the broadcast media with the inability to not look at situations in terms of more than two options. It is not him or her, this or that, right or left, black or white. This binary thinking is artificial and has lead to the premature narrowing of the field by the impact of media coverage only focusing on two candidates at a time. Talk about loss of an effective vote. I'd like to vote against NPR coverage by not contributing, BUT then I wouldn't be able to support my local station. So stop bellyaching on show after show about Super delegates and loss of the individual vote counting in the democratic party. I seriously doubt if the entire decision of which shows to carry would be left to listener vote. We get to input, influence, recommend, but not decide. I bet NPR doesn't change its rules to be a role model to the Democratic Party.

Sent by Vivian | 10:44 PM | 2-11-2008

I was sorely disappointed that NPR and my local public radio station, KQED in San Francisco, seemed to go to great lengths NOT to discuss the campaign events of Congressman Dennis Kucinich. I might have expected the major networks and cable to follow the herd, but not my public radio station. And when Kucinich was barred from debating in three nationally televised debates I never heard one word of it from any source other than the internet, and Amy Goodman's program on another station.

Why is Hillary or Obama's statements about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's birthday any more newsworthy than Dennis Kucinich's or Mike Gravel's, or Ron Paul's statements?

I am left with very serious concerns about what kind of democracy we have in America, and what kind of democracy we will pass on to the next generation. And these concerns were the deciding factor in my decision NOT to send support to KQED during its most recent pledge drive.

Sent by Jeff Boek | 12:44 AM | 2-12-2008

The Washington State Caucus was A Popularity Contest with ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANCE!

This was not a caucus on Saturday. It was badly conducted Pep Rally. Issues were not discussed and no one knew why they were voting for Obama!
Most people I spoke to said that they would love to have Hillary as a President but the thought a man would have to go up against Mc Cain. Another said that they didn't believe in her because she should have left her husband.

I was extremely disappointed in the lack of discussion of the issues and embarrassed by the blind sheep mentality of Obama supporters who could sight none of the issues he even stood for.

The Obama Campaign is uninformed and blinded by "HOPE". I don't want HOPE I WANT SUBSTANCE!
I want the Candidates to Answer questions and I want this campaign to stop acting like a Basketball rally and get to the issues!

I have been open to vote for either democratic candidate but so far Clinton is the only on answering questions.

Thank you,
C

Sent by Corbett | 6:34 AM | 2-12-2008

I know you got my previous comment because I haven't heard a thing today about midnight Pacific being 2100 Eastern. So, you seem to be censoring criticism you KNOW you deserve. Imagine that.

Sent by Anthony Platt | 9:06 AM | 2-12-2008

I had the opportunity Tuesday morning to listen to the "Talk of the Nation" segment that aired on Monday, Feb. 11. David Folkenflik, about 16 minutes into the discussion, talked about how being a governor is a better "launching pad" for becoming president and compared Huckabee to Paul. I don't really see the relevance of the comment, which seemingly was meant to DEFEND the lack of airtime Ron Paul has received. Dr. Paul has spent 20 years in Congress and no time as a governor, but that doesn't mean that his chances should be degraded by the media. Our last two presidents have been governors, after all, and their presidencies have been fraught with scandal and low approval ratings. Also, when the Ron Paul supporter with the Obama-supporting husband called and decried unequal airtimes and the number of questions that were asked in national debates, the same guest, David, said that the media FOLLOWS rather than LEADS. I think it's been rather apparent just listening to your segment but that there is serious concern about the problem of the media leading, thus the reason for the roundtable discussion you were holding. Then, the following comment David made was that if the media opened up the table to all candidates - including the Green and Libertarian candidates that a previous called mentioned - it would be impossible to cover them all. However, in the beginning of the segment, the claim was made that the cable news stations often have nothing better to do than project the future and repeat stories. If they have all this time on their hands, they should be able to spread their coverage around equally, don't you think?
The point about the media's blatant ignorance of Ron Paul is valid and should not, yet again, be dismissed. I'd like to take it further and agree with the caller who expressed dismay about the lack of coverage the Green party has received. Ironically, global warming and the environment is a hot-button issue in this country, yet the Green Party is not even discussed.
This campaign "season," or rather year, has been disheartening because of the way the media has covered it, and the issues you scratch the surface of deserve serious scrutiny.

Sent by Beth Srigley | 10:39 AM | 2-12-2008

The most money raised in last quarter 2007.
The most money raised from Service Men & Women.
The most Republican of all the candidates.

600+ articles the week before Super Tuesday and NO MENTION of him?

I've already cancelled my USA Today and Time magazine for completely ignoring him.

Welcome to the list NPR. I will never support my local radio station either. You are just as guilty.

Dr. Ron Paul is the best candidate for the United State and the treatment he has received from the press is ludicrous.

Sent by Aaron | 4:23 PM | 2-12-2008

The media bias against Ron Paul, and, for that matter, any candidate who had anything truly unique to say to America was summarily relegated to the fringe and labeled so RELENTLESSLY.
Why is it necessary to harp on the poll standings from the earliest stages of the campaigns? This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in which candidates who do not have national name recognition never can get the exposure they need to make their case before the American people. I did not even know that there was a candidate named Ron Paul until my brother sent me an email encouraging me to look into his candidacy. This in spite of the fact that I made a habit of listening to Morning Edition every day.

Sent by John Bowery | 8:44 PM | 2-12-2008

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/health2008hc.cfm?&hc=2258
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWLwJyc0ZqI
did i miss this interview on NPR?
i heard other candidates that were interviewed, but it was more of a forum as a opposed to a 1-on-1 interview!!
what's the deal? if i only missed dr paul being aired then it's no big deal, otherwise I see it as a great injustice that it was not aired nationally as other candidates were. i thought biden's interview was good.

Sent by jesse | 9:55 PM | 2-13-2008

Once and a while I tune in to "All Things Considered" for a hoot. The title in its self is an oxymoron.
No one denies, including NPR, that they are extremly bias'd. I find it amusing that there is something called "The project for excellence in journalism."

Op-ed replaced journalism along time ago. Today, all media outlets, (thousands of them) pander to their base listeners, readers, and watchers. Fair un-biased journalism is dead. It is about spinning for advertising revenue. Why would a radio station buy an NPR show?

Sent by MICHAEL | 5:12 AM | 2-14-2008

Yes, as a 15 year listener, I was surprised and VERY disappointed by NPR's coverage of the candidates-in particular, Ron Paul.

Not only did NRP ignore Ron Paul, they lied. NPR made numerous statements incidating "there is no anti war republican candidate" and "who is the most conservative candidate?"-without mentioning Ron Paul. Basically, NPR went so far as to deny Dr. Paul existed.

Sent by Darby Green | 7:40 AM | 2-14-2008

After reading all of the comments made by other listeners to NPR I just have to make my own comments regarding the Political Coverage by the Media.
I was a Joe BIden supporter from the get-go but did not see much coverage of him or his issues. I had to look deeply online to find the answers I so desperately needed. I have done the same with ALL of the candidates... the GOP, the Dems, Green, Constitutional, etc. Although I am a registered Dem it doesn't mean I need to vote party line.
Anyway, what I am saying is this: I cannot find any depth to Obama's "issues" or what he plans to do besides his saying we need change. I NEED to know what his intended changes are. I need to see what he has done for the people since he has been in any political office. The same goes for Hillary, and Dr Paul, etc. It is time the media, both mass media and small media to give the people the information we so desperately need to make an informed decision. It needs to be more of an intelligence race as opposed to a beauty contest.
I also want to know what those of us in the late Primary states (like here in Oregon where our primary is after the GOP convention in late May) are suppose to do....do our votes mean nothing??

Sent by Sande | 5:40 PM | 2-20-2008