UPDATE: Click here for the most recent coverage of Ron Paul, including relevant facts and campaign strategies. Paul has since decided to leave the presidential race, but his informational page will remain online for a while longer.

UPDATE: Story aired on All Things Considered Feb 18, 2008
PRIMARY CHALLENGE TO RON PAUL IN TEXAS — To say that Ron Paul, the Republican congressman who is running for president, marches to his own drum is fair statement. He opposes the war in Iraq (he was one of six House Republicans to vote against it), and has broken with his party on an assortment of issues. While this has brought him fame, and money, from Internet donors, not everyone back home in his Texas congressional district is happy with him. And in the March primary, he faces an opponent who is far closer to the Bush administration than Paul is. David Davies reports.

—Chantal de la Rionda, Office of the Ombdusman

It's easy for the media to dismiss Republican presidential aspirant Ron Paul.

Political journalists know that candidates with Paul's iconoclastic ideas — ending federal income tax, abolishing government departments and withdrawing from the United Nations —seldom get far at the ballot box.

But the mainstream media dismissal overlooks the phenomenon of public interest in the libertarian doctor and congressman from Texas:

*Last week, he raised $1.85 million in a 24-hour period.

*He's a superstar on YouTube with over 7 million viewers clicking on his offerings.

*Until Tuesday's Florida primary, Paul had beaten former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in Iowa, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina. Giuliani bested Paul in New Hampshire by 2,092 votes. (Paul campaigned in some of these states, while Giuliani focused mainly on Florida).

* Paul had captured 106,414 votes to Giuliani's 60,220 — even though the press touted Giuliani as a frontrunner. (See NPR primary map)

*Paul came in second, albeit a distant second, in a field of seven Republicans in Nevada.

Despite these accomplishments, NPR (along with most national news outlets) has treated Paul as a "minor" candidate.

In the last four months, the Ombudsman's office has received more than 200 individually written emails complaining about NPR's Paul coverage — more emails than all the complaints combined about NPR coverage of all other Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.

Corey Salomon of San Antonio, Texas has listened to NPR for 10 years. "I'm 22 now and I am very ashamed of the way NPR has handled the coverage of this year's presidential election," said Salomon in an email. "A second place finish for the Republican nomination in Nevada should be enough for you to see that Dr. Paul is a very viable candidate that is worthy of as much coverage as you have given to the other candidates."

An example of what Salomon means was Weekend Edition Sunday coverage of the Jan. 19 Nevada caucuses. Reporter Ina Jaffe devoted one line to Paul in a four-minute story. NPR tried to get Paul on air after Nevada but he couldn't do it. His staff offered him for the next day, but by then the story had moved on.

While NPR has included Paul in wide-ranging election stories, the last time he appeared on air (aside from NPR running the Republican debates) was in a seven-minute interview in July 2007 with All Things Considered's (ATC) host Robert Siegel.

"Ron Paul has not been absent from NPR's coverage of the presidential campaign to date," said NPR senior Washington editor Ron Elving. "A quick glance at the transcript file for the past six months turns up 160 mentions on air during that period. But there have also been feature pieces on most all NPR shows, including Morning Edition and ATC, looking at his fundraising success, appeal to young voters and intensity of support on the Internet."

Paul has been included in passing far more than he's been featured on NPR. So far, NPR has carried 13 stories on Paul, most on its new show The Bryant Park Project, which is aimed at a younger demographic. Day to Day also ran a segment in January and a follow-up. Before that, the last story primarily on Paul was in December when he won a spot in the political record books by earning more money (over $6 million) on the Internet in one day than any other candidate.

Paul is included on NPR's web site of presidential profiles, along with story links about him.

The first confirmation that Paul's successful fund-raising on the Internet would translate into votes came in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, when he won 10 percent of the vote — ahead of Giuliani.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who teaches in the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, said after the Iowa caucuses that it was an "injustice" for the media not to give more coverage to Paul.

Paul "gets largely ignored for a very fine 10 percent showing last night, which should have been regarded as remarkable, given where he is placed within the Republican field and how little time he's gotten in the debates," Jamieson told PBS' Bill Moyers.

"But we forget in the press, that people who vote and the people who are governed, are not only Democrats and Republicans. There are libertarians there. There are undecideds there," she continued. "There are people who legitimately say, 'I don't identify with any of this. I'll call myself independent. I don't have a name yet.' "

All media outlets are stretched in covering this year's presidential campaign with multiple candidates, and must make daily decisions on allocating resources. NPR is no exception. Even so, I think the Paul phenomenon of youth and Internet support is worth more than a handful of stories.

"Yes, Paul has raised lots of money and has many dedicated supporters," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "That's all good, but even Ron Paul realizes he is not going to be the GOP presidential nominee. There is a happy golden mean of major and minor candidates somewhere. No one ever finds it's to everyone's satisfaction. The good news is that news organizations don't conspire."

NPR's Elving, a seasoned veteran of eight presidential races, said he is prepared to give Paul greater coverage when he is no longer an 'also-ran' in Republican primaries. "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."




Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the 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.

I listened intently for two hours on the night of the Iowa caucus and for another hour the next morning. NPR's bias of silence was shameful. Repeatedly, only the top 70% of Republican votes were reported. Who got the other 30%? Paul with 10% and the others with the remaining 20%, I found out from OTHER sources. Zero mention of Paul in those three hours except by one GUEST commentator who was interrupted before he could finish. OBVIOUS political bias.

Sent by Ray Ubinger | 7:04 PM | 1-30-2008

Rather than focus your blog on the lack of coverage of one candidate, I would like to know which candidates and interests NPR's "booking office" calls or emails constantly (as stated in your last blog)?

Sent by andrew hennessy | 7:09 PM | 1-30-2008

I have already written NPR letting them know about my boycott. I used to listen on my way to and from work. I followed this link from Ron Paul's website and that is the only reason I am here.

If you click the link to Dr. Paul, you will see that last article dated November 2007! If for no other reason there should have been an article after the $6+ MILLION 'money bomb' in December. Average donation??? just over $100. Not some $2000 a plate dinner like the Clintons for example.

I stopped listening the moment I heard a story that compared the Republican candidates to Ronald Regan and Ron Paul was not mentioned. Ron Paul wins that one hands down.

If this Elving person wants to know why Ron does not want to run 3rd party, he or she can go to and find out.

Dr. Paul is VERY busy campaigning in as many states as possible and as a result, his schedule is slam packed. He has to because the media will not give him the same amount of free press as the other candidates. If you can't schedule him, it wouldn't hurt to do your homework on the guy. Just google his name to start.

It is a catch 22 but not perfectly, because, as you say, your listeners ask to hear about Ron Paul and you ignore them. Good riddance.

Sent by Tom P | 8:01 PM | 1-30-2008

When I listen to the news in the AM the day after the debate in which 5 candidates debated and only one (Ron Paul) is not mentioned that appears to be intentional exclusion of one candidate.

Your article here defending yourself does not address the reality that a large number of people who at one time trusted you for real new coverage no longer trust you.

You are doing exactly what other "corporate" new organizations are doing, which is painfully sophomoric behavior, we know what's best for the listener. No you don't know what is best - give us the news and let us sort it out!

What I don't get is why? Why do you of all the radio news networks ignore this man who is pushing through the status quo?

Your answer in the article above is not acceptable. You receive tax dollars and subscriber money and act as if you play to a higher standard, but you don't.

You are defending against the message that Ron Paul is being ignored by you, but not meeting the challenge by producing more accurate coverage.

Sounds disturbingly like the same tactic of some politicians - defend you position at all costs! This leaves you self righteously not considering the requests of listeners - voters - news consumers.

Please consider accurate coverage of the debates - stop giving us the same old stuff. Where is your integrity and courage? Your pioneering spirit? The mandate for news w/objective meaningful, in-depth reporting?

Let us know we can count on you again to present news not slanted corporate news rehashes.

Thank you,

Sent by Naomi Marie | 10:11 PM | 1-30-2008

I came to this site to complain about the lack of coverage on Ron Paul after reading the article and seeing the chart on NPR's site re: finances and money raised by the candidates here: AGAIN, Ron Paul was excluded from this list! Why? Why is he continually excluded? What I found when I got to the Ombudsman's site was the above article which is hogwash. Please get fair here. CNN left both he and Huckabee out of the debate tonight. It is a disservice to the American people when the candidates THEY HAVE CHOSEN are not given fair and equal representation. I am not at all satisfied with the above article and especially with the final comment by Elving. Maybe Ron Paul WOULD be the GOP candidate if his message was delivered for all Americans to hear. Elving also says News Organizations don't conspire -I don't buy that either. Look at your own web page I listed above. Ron Paul is a top fund raiser and yet he's not even on this list! Why?

Sent by Patty Crowe | 12:50 AM | 1-31-2008

When has Dr. Paul said he didn't think he could be the GOP presidential nominee?

Sent by Corey Salomon | 7:45 AM | 1-31-2008

I was a "Dollar a day" supporter last year and I can't WAIT until they call me and ask for support again! They are gonna get a piece of my mind AND NO MORE MONEY. It wasn't a lot but I won't support them again.

I expected to find a friend in NPR and was dead wrong.

Sent by John Smith | 9:20 AM | 1-31-2008

Perhaps none of us are qualified to comment, y'know, that whole 'walk a mile in someone's shoes,' thing. Yet while I'm not sure of exactly what goes on in the newsrooms across the U.S., the article above just doesn't cut it. The point is this: whenever there's a discussion of the current election, only a handful of names are brought up for either side. It has been like this for months. By ignoring the other candidates who are running, especially someone like Ron Paul who has more 1st place straw poll wins that all other Repub. candidates combined, more military money donated than anyone else, broken campaign fundraising records, etc., etc. It becomes not only incredibly obvious, but incredibly frustrating the more that he is ignored. Why do you do this? And yes, I'm a long, long time listener of NPR.

Sent by Andrew Elstner | 5:42 PM | 1-31-2008

Interesting that there have been 160 mentions of Ron Paul on the air in 6 months. That's almost once a day. It would also be interesting to see how many mentions each of the other candidates have had in that same time frame.

Sent by Barb Niehoff | 5:44 PM | 1-31-2008

I am a liberal- would not consider myself a far left person by any means. But Ron Paul's anti-war stance has completely won me over. The first time
I heard him talk about the war- that it was a mistake and that we need to rectify it, my jaw dropped. I could not believe that there was someone who was saying the things that many of my friends say in private, but dont in public- for the fear of "not supporting the troops".
My favorite guys the democrats have sat on the fence talking about how the was was "mishandled", as opposed to "illegal".
I expected a VERY unbiased coverage from NPR. While Fox new's dissing of Mr Ron Paul has been blatant, NPR's has been more sneaky. It may not be a prudent career move to give equal coverage to the candidate everyone loves to ridicule.
Perhaps its time to turn off my radio and listen to my zune.

Sent by anita | 5:52 PM | 1-31-2008

Ron Elving's comment at the end of this article is EXACTLY the sort of problem we're dealing with here. The media IS BIASED - as Mr. Elving himself so demonstrates in his writing off of the Paul campaign. How is it so hard for the media, including NPR, to get this through its head:


Read that closely. Think about it. Read it again.

Such a comment from Mr. Elving create a self-perpetuating situation, where based on such an initial assumption (candidate X has no chance) the media acts accordingly in its coverage of the race. Since Ron Paul first announced his candidacy, the media has been saying he has "no chance", and since he has "no chance" he is not covered, and since he is not covered, it is indeed difficult for him to have a chance.


This behavior of the media is dangerous, it's shameful, it's anti-democratic, and it's inexcusable. I challenge you to rise above it. You can start with Mr. Elving...

Sent by Jonathan Halterman | 5:52 PM | 1-31-2008

Sure they mention Paul's name, but thats it. They don't talk aout his views on the issues. Gulliani got plenty of air time, even though Paul was beating him in the polls and primarys. NPR has CFR ties. NPR gets they're marching orders from the CFR globalists who own the media. NPR,ABC,NBC,MSNBC,CBS...alll the major media is as fair and balanced as FOX. FOX has had more air time for Paul than all of the fore mentioned networks. Look at the overwhelming support for Ron Paul in the internet and on peoples lawns and on the hiways all across the United States. If the media wont get the word about about Paul his supporters damn sure will.

Sent by Richard Stevens | 5:53 PM | 1-31-2008

I've been an NPR member for several years - but dealing with the disgust I've found with much of the media, including NPR, for its Presidential coverage and particularly of Ron Paul, I had absolutely zero interest in renewing my membership when my local station had a fund drive this week.

Perhaps time will change things, but my current mood is still - disgusted.

Sent by Larry Elder | 5:55 PM | 1-31-2008

I donated a car to NPR, but now...never again. I thought NPR was different.

I stopped reading this article when I got to the part trying to convince me that Dr. Paul wasn't being ignored.

Funny thing, they provide metrics for how many times Ron Paul's name is mentioned, but fail to put that into context with the huge number of mentions the other candidates received.

I'm so tired of listening to the pundits on NPR talk about every candidate but Ron Paul. Don't try to tell me it's not happening. I'm not stupid and frankly I'm disgusted that NPR thinks I am.

Sent by Ian Drake | 6:00 PM | 1-31-2008

This is a start but please give us a simple report once a week on what Dr. Paul is doing on the radio! Please!

Show NPR what you think of the way Dr. Paul is treated by donating and signing up as a Precinct Leader. With your support, Dr. Paul is going to win this race despite all these attempts to ignore or silence him.

Sent by Rick Martin, Buhl Idaho | 10:29 PM | 1-31-2008

It's interesting to see NPR defending its coverage of Ron Paul. I'll ask one question:

Why did NPR choose to not cover "Jane Roe"'s endorsement of Ron Paul on the anniversary of the historic supreme court ruling? NPR does cover many lesser endorsements for other candidates. So what's going on?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that had any other candidate received that endorsement, you wouldn't be able to escape the news. Why is it not news if it involves Ron Paul?

Sent by Jen Christiane | 12:14 AM | 2-1-2008

How can the media be ignoring the questionable results in Louisiana? This is the kind of election year dirt that journalists bite and scratch for. I don't care who your choice for president is, this is highly suspicious.

Sent by steven montross | 7:43 PM | 2-1-2008

I hope Dr. Paul's second place finish in the Maine Caucus yesterday doesn't go unnoticed. I wouldn't be surprised if it does or is heavily qualified by being 'only 4 votes more than McCain'.

Sent by Sean B. | 1:48 PM | 2-2-2008

Mr. Elving's defense in the article is loathsome. He really does think the listeners and (previous) supporters of NPR are stupid and gullable.

We, the public, know the media conspires. If you don't know it Mr. Elving, then I must question your intellect.

Sent by CJ Weir | 9:43 PM | 2-3-2008

I stopped listening to your station after one day when your station went on and on about McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giulianni (hehe), and failed to mention Ron Paul's views. Fortunately I found another station to listen to EVERY day.

Sent by Chris | 2:28 AM | 2-4-2008

NPR has changed, along with the networks. YOUR SCARED! Dr Ron Paul deserves equal time and with so many crimes in the white house , it proves your journalism is sensored and skewed to protect this crooked govt, and NPR is scared it will loose it sponsors, THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
Your ability to be our new sourse has ended. You are just irrelevant new brokers.
It amazes me , you have the platform to make changes, to out the crooked behaviour of the admistration and even daniel shoor has fallen asleep

Sent by larry patriot schaffer | 10:05 AM | 2-4-2008

This morning on NPR there was coverage of Romney, McCain, Huckabee...and then...coverage turned to the 2 Democrats. I guess I shoudn't vote on Tuesday. Sounds like Ron Paul is no longer running.

Sent by RD | 11:16 AM | 2-4-2008

Outright sensorship for Dr Ron Paul.
He is a outsider with fresh new ideas that would upset the apple cart for all the corporations and cronies that feed of the public trough.
It's a shame a man who raises more cash than the front runners cannot get the media frenzie OJ simpson or paris hilton gets.
what is wrong with our media?

Sent by larry | 12:25 PM | 2-4-2008

Thank you for frankly addressing this issue. Now please do something about it! Super Tuesday is upon us and it may be too late. You can sugar coat your article all you want. Anyone listening who is fully informed on the candidates knows that this election may have been stolen by a corrupt or irresponsible corporate AND public media. Please quit talking about Barack and Hillary every 2 seconds and report on Mike Gravel while your at it. You keep speaking of the 2 Dems still in as if Gravel dropped out. Self fulfilling prophesy.

Sent by David Summerly | 9:27 PM | 2-4-2008

Sabato and Elving are part of the problem. That kind of in the box thinking is what we are all talking about. NPR should be known for being innovative and thought provoking, not towing the MSM slop they call News.

Sent by Keith | 9:38 PM | 2-4-2008

Ron Paul is no President Reagan and the American people are smart enough to notice. Quite clearly they have. Radicals may try to blame NPR and the rest of the mainstream media for conspiring against Rep. Paul, but such is not the case. The real reason 90 percent of Republicans reject Rep. Paul is because they have actually listened to his ideas and found them lacking.

Sent by Bob | 10:21 PM | 2-4-2008

NPR is completely bias, they have covered him just enough to say they have wihtout looking like FOX News. However, coverage means constant coverage like the rest of the candidates. Rudy got more coverage then Ron Paul and that's sad. NPR has lost my support and I will be telling everyone here in DC!

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

NPR's bias is "corporatist" in general. Big corporations buy candidates and influence the media to promote the chosen few. Ron Paul is a threat to large corporations' unconstitutional influence on government.

NPR was likewise shunning Dennis Kucinich, who had a realistic chance if the electorate had learned more about him.

NPR, along with the major media is controlled by the power behind the thrown--big corporations, war profiteers and central banks.

This is another reason why NPR is known as National Pentagon Radio.

Sent by Carroll Nast | 3:26 AM | 2-5-2008

Oh, I see. Ron Paul should only receive a fair amount of coverage if he runs third party. After all, that would be a novelty!

Sent by Fred | 3:37 AM | 2-5-2008

NPR has ensured it's continued federal funding by following the MSM playbook concerning Ron Paul - keep pushing the "he can't win" meme and give him minimal coverage that emphasises the "long shot", "no chance" mindset.

Apparently, NPR thinks their federal funding will be sufficient to make up for the thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) of Paul supporters who will no longer listen to or financially support NPR.

Good luck with that.

- Former listener, former donor

Sent by Wendy | 11:40 AM | 2-5-2008

This was just lame. NPR regularly skipped Ron Paul when reporting caucus and primary totals and gave more coverage to Michael Bloomberg who isn't even a candidate. This is the WEAKEST piece I've ever seen. NPR should be outright ashamed of this. My NPR listening has been cut in half because of this travesty and I will be reducing my contributions to NPR accordingly.
Don't tell me "its so hard" until last week NPR NEVER mentioned Ron Paul in ANY reports of primary totals. In Nevada we got the first and third place finishers without ANY MENTION of Ron Paul. We got better coverage of Fred Thompson AFTER he dropped out.
Don't give me Day To Day when other candidates are on ATC or Morning Edition...

Sent by Curt Raymond | 12:49 PM | 2-5-2008

In this presidential election, we have witnessed the biggest MSM blackout in history. I no longer watch Anderson Cooper (rudest person I know!) Faux News -- and now I have reprogrammed my radio -- to bypass NPR. Prefer to get my news from the internet, anyway. Sooo long NPR.

Sent by Madeline H | 12:53 PM | 2-5-2008

We are no longer contributing to NPR's fund drives. The journalistic standards I THOUGHT I was contributing to are no longer there.

Sent by Siby Joseph | 1:36 PM | 2-5-2008

you admit in this article that Paul received more votes than Giuliani (by the way-- he also received more than Thompson) in all the early states, and yet you still offer no explanation as to why he's been given no time in relation to those other two. And please do not use issues as an excuse: A desire to abolish the IRS is much less radical than a desire to police the entire world.

Sent by Sun | 4:40 PM | 2-5-2008

You'll never get another contribution from me, that's for sure. Do your worst! I've already written you off, and so have most of RP's millions of supporters. Laugh that one off, buddy.

Sent by Louis Nardozi | 5:04 PM | 2-5-2008

Every time I hear any journalist say that anyone, especially Ron Paul "knows he is not going to get the GOP nomination" I want to cry. Do they not realize that is exactly the problem, the system is so broken that the press gets to pick the winners, regardless of the will of the people? I used to love NPR, especially Talk of the Nation, but I will not listen (or donate) ever again. I have CD's for music and the internet for news. Press? Media? Oh, yes, I remember back when those were considered "news sources." Those days are gone, now.

Sent by Claire | 5:17 PM | 2-5-2008

I used to listen to NPR all the time prior to the 2008 race for president. But during the last few months of this primary race I noticed that NPR never mentioned Ron Paul while I was listening. I thought NPR was an intelligent alternative to the other main stream media outlets, but I was wrong. NPR has obviously decided that they know best in who the American people should vote for. I will never again listen or donate to NPR. 90.9 in Boston. You people have made your bed, now lay in it!

Sent by Richard Perron Jr. | 5:19 PM | 2-5-2008

LOL. Heck, I've mentioned NPR atleast 160 times over the past several weeks. That's at least 160 who will never listen again. Karma.

Sent by Former Fan | 5:24 PM | 2-5-2008

Gee, what a shock, NPR only wants to include those candidates who are aligned with taxpayer-supported enterprises such as National Public Radio. Non-big-government candidates need not apply.

Sent by Donald E. Cameron | 5:29 PM | 2-5-2008

Coverage for Ron Paul from NPR? You must be kidding. They are there to tow the line and they're not going to give any coverage to a candidate who, if elected, would make them earn their way in the world instead of leaching off of taxpayers. They are the radio equivalent of Pravda.

Sent by Don | 5:30 PM | 2-5-2008

For decades I have turned to NPR to give me the news that FOX, CNN, and all the other old worn out media sources don't give me. Unfortunately, NPR, despite their lame claims to the contrary, has gone their way.

Sent by Rick Honer | 5:34 PM | 2-5-2008

I'm disgusted at the whole election process. It's so apparent that the news does the bidding of affluent. News used to be a reputable occupation and now it seems there is no real reporting. I can read exactly the same story, word for word, in supposedly rival newspapers. No one even goes out and talks to the people.
They may have mention Ron Paul 160 times. That means nothing when you probably mentioned Paris Hilton 200 times.

Sent by Tom | 5:40 PM | 2-5-2008

I too will never contribute to NPR again due to the improper, and poor journalism. The media that has filtered Ron Paul from America is responsible for their own demise.

Sent by terry | 5:41 PM | 2-5-2008

Most disconcerting....I have always held the station's reputation in high esteem.

Sent by Bonnie | 5:43 PM | 2-5-2008

Hmm. Let me get this straight, NPR just assumes the same thing that Larry Sabato does about not winning, the coverage disappears while the other candidates get hours of free coverage, THEN, the public does not hear about a viable candidate and therefore doesn't vote for him. That sounds like a vicious circle that NPR is helping to perpetuate. Isn't the role of media to make sure messages get OUT TO THE PUBLIC, rather than to SUPPRESS the message?

Sent by jonsmallberries | 5:45 PM | 2-5-2008

NPR - National Propaganda Review - enjoy the moment NPR, the seeds of liberty have already been planted for the future. NPR is a prime example of "inefficiencies in government funding".

Sent by 4tomorrow | 5:47 PM | 2-5-2008

I no longer listen to NPR. They lost a donor as well as an avid listener. I emailed numerous times to Diane Rehm show in regard to Paul, and their slanted views. (Friday news Round-up) The response I got back was "We have tried to get Ron Paul on our show, but he hasn't responded". They constantly left him out and never ever mentioned him. I never thought NPR was so slanted until this election. But when you look at the Foundation's (Corporation's) that sponsor them, the picture all the sudden becomes a lot clearer. The backlash from the censorship will reflect. There is a movement going on, people are waking up and taking notice of what is going on They realize what is happening to our Country and are smart enough to see what our future holds. Dr. Paul has more experience than any other candidate running. A 10 term Texas Congressman OBGYN, Air Force Veteran. You can't attack his record because he's never wavered from the Constitution. There will be other elections, and don't think that Dr. Paul hasn't inspired an army of people who want to restore our Government to the way the founding fathers wanted. What is so wrong with following our Constitution? NPR is doing a dis-service to the American public. The American people own the airwave's not the Main Stream Media.

Sent by R. Whitaker | 5:49 PM | 2-5-2008

I am also a long time NPR listener who has been very let down by the coverage of Ron Paul this election season. When he is mentioned it is usually just by name, with no in depth coverage and often the commentators tone is clearly different when they refer to Ron Paul. I see no conspiracies here, simply a lack of insight and balance in coverage.

Sent by Jason Henson | 5:56 PM | 2-5-2008

This is the NPR response, but how hard is it really to just be fair? Just yesterday they had a lengthy discussion in T.o.t.Nation about how real conservatives are having such a hard time finding a candidate that is conservative. WOW, no Ron Paul. You have a feature specifically on the exact topic of why there's no one like Ron Paul in the race?

It's a joke to talk about how much coverage he's gotten when it's all just about his fundraising days and marvelling at the curiousness of his support. How about including his positions along with the other candidates when you have a blanket feature on "the republican field." Yes, there have been some distinct mentions, but for all the wrong reasons.

Sent by Brandon | 6:00 PM | 2-5-2008

I believe the posts above pretty well sum it up..NPR IS IGNORING Dr. Ron Paul and no matter how you 'spin it', you are ignoring him! No more money for NPR from me(get it from YOUR's not mine anymore... after they borrow it from China).

Sent by Captain Gary E. Morton | 6:02 PM | 2-5-2008

NPR isn't to blame for the lack of Ron Paul coverage - it's listeners and contributers are.

Stop listening to NPR. Stop contributing to NPR. Without an audience, they slip quietly into the obscurity of 'has beens' and vanish.

Eventually some station will get the hint that spoon-fed, one-sided issues and commentary are not what intrigues the listeners of this new era.

We want facts. We want ALL of them. We want to hear all sides of every story. Not lopsided 'more time for our guy' commentary.

Dont know how to accomplish that? Then you're in the wrong business.

Sent by WHeisenberg | 6:34 PM | 2-5-2008

Ron Paul is against the illegal occupation of sovereign countries. That alone should qualify him for special coverage. Since when is the killing of innocent Iraqi's the vogue? It's an outrage. Only Ron Paul has the moral courage to stand against this stain on our national conscience. The occupation of Iraq was an attempt to give US oil services companies (Haliburton et al) a foothold in Iraq. It is a commercially motivated war. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. The media, including NPR, lack the backbone to give coverage to the only candidate able to bring peace to Iraq and negotiate with and earn the respect of the Muslim world. Ron Paul is a great man. He makes me proud to be an American.

Sent by Albert Meyer | 6:42 PM | 2-5-2008

This is a fund drive cycle right now for WBAI 95.5 fm in New York I've been
a listerner and when able a supporter...
However since you've chosen to marginalize Dr. Pauls candidacy I have no alternative but to Accord you the same level of support NADA !!!! ZIP!!!!
BUPKISS!!!! Now Go and fleece the other
sheep .....

Sent by L.Barrett | 7:31 PM | 2-5-2008

You know what? You have just lost your credibility! If you think for ONE MINUTE you are looking good to the public by ELIMINATING one of our Presidential candidates while reporting on some bizarre jungle story or zinging off on other tangents when our country is facing a financial meltdown, you are not serving the public. It is plain to see that corporate underwriting, foundation feeding, slick marketing and sales promotion trump honest reporting. You are going to see a blowback and backlash. I am giving what might have been your future contributions to Ron Paul, who deserves all the help he can get. Americans want change. We have gone from a nation of patriots who follow our Constitution to an Evil Empire, from the White House right down to your studios.


Sent by Patriot for Paul | 8:23 PM | 2-5-2008

You have got to be kidding me NPR! You defend your bias then close your defense with a biased statement? How stupid do you think we are!?

Sent by Josh Hartman | 1:14 PM | 2-6-2008

I am very happy to see I am not the only one in this country who sees the NPR injustice to RON PAUL. I too loved NPR but no more. I guess when you own the media you can say what ever you want or nothing. 40% gov funding, 60% donations. Guess we don't count, where can I get real news, NO WHERE!

Sent by Angel I VonNeida | 4:11 PM | 2-6-2008

Nationa "public" radio is just as bad as the rest of those slimeballs called "the media". this aint a democracy, even if the government gave the people the right to choose their president and not the delegates, it'd still comes down to the media. The news organizations tell people what to think and the people listen. so thanks. thanks a whole lot for choosing candidates who talk big but dont say anything. people with great jelled up hair. Christians, black guys and chicks. thanks a whole freaking lot. you suck NPR. next time listen to what the people of this country are screaming at you about. *flicks off NPR*

Sent by Beaches | 5:58 PM | 2-6-2008

NPR--As much as you try to distance yourself from your RP misdeeds, enough people know that there is something askew. It's clear to me that you'll persist in a line that best serves your own interests (as opposed to your listeners') & thereby continue to thwart the objective, responsible journalism that you so readily pay lip service to. You can & will get away with this because you have enough power & persuasion to convince a trusting public. How's that feel for ya? You have the trust of a dedicated listener-ship & instead of honoring that, you're compelled to take advantage of it in order to promote your own agenda.

While I don't know much in this world, I do have a defined sense of right from wrong..I am decidely imperfect, but I strive to do what's right and correct my wrongs. It is therefore with no malice that I pray that God convict the spirit of those committed to the promotion of injustice, so that we as a people can begin to heal.

Sent by Thomas Braun | 2:56 PM | 2-7-2008

Vitriolic anonymous postings aside, I think Paul has received the amount of coverage he deserves. A candidate who could not win after Feb. 5th if he received all remaining delegates is a footnote at best. Rather, what most needs to be analyzed is the strengths of mobilizing a young internet centered support base, and the pitfalls of spiraling into sycophantic internet communities who do more to mobilize digging, poll flooding, and DoS attacks on rival viewpoints rather than voting and courting non-fridge demographics. Of course what puzzles me the most is the number of people who see no schism in logic between supporting a libertarian and publicly funded broadcast (Hint: The Freemarket doesn't pay for NPR my dirty fiat money does.)

Sent by An Anonymous Lizard Banker | 4:39 PM | 2-7-2008

It's not only the youth of America that are passionate about Ron Paul. I'm a 46 year old female that wishes he could be our president. The media never gave him a chance. Americans deserve to hear about all the candidates from all parties. Not everyone has internet access, but most people have TV and radio. No wonder the senior citizens of this country never heard of Ron Paul. Frankly, Hillary, Obama, and McCain bore me to tears with their lies.

Sent by Kathleen | 2:53 PM | 2-11-2008

Well, first of all I actually commend NPR for having the courage to address this issue on Talk of the Nation. Actually I think that took some guts considering the possible backlash and strong opinions on this subject. However, some of the comments in this note above are very disconcerting to me. For example, the argument seems to go like this: We recognize all these historical metrics for providing coverage to political candidates (such as fundraising milestones and obvious groundswell of dedicated support) seem to exist with Dr. Paul but for no stated reason, we plan to continue to ignore the gap in coverage. In fact, the last section which alludes to a willingness to cover Dr. Paul if he runs as a third party is perfectly aligned with the notion that Media plays a significant role in who is chosen as mainstream presidential candidates. I feel this is an injustice to Freedom and I am personally disappointed in NPR for these statements. I have been a long time supporter of NPR and I hate to abandon what I consider to be my best radio outlet but if honest dialogue and fair reporting cannot exist here, perhaps the internet is the only place to go.

Sent by Sarah | 8:25 AM | 2-12-2008

I just wanted to make sure you ran a correction on the discussion about how none of the Republican candidates mention Cuba. One candidate repeatedly discusses Cuba. Ron Paul repeatedly states that the US should trade with and travel to Cuba.

I know you are good about airing corrections, and i think this information would be very beneficial for listeners who feel we should have a better relationship with Cuba.

Sent by Mike Binns | 11:19 AM | 2-12-2008

I am calling WFDD in Winston-Salem right now to cancel my patronage. I remember standing in my kitchen wanting to vomit as I heard an NPR story about Republican candidates and their Christian beliefs. Dr. Paul was not mentioned ONE TIME in the story...every other candidates at the Values Voters meeting was named. It is not oversight to mention all candidates but one-Ron Paul. He was there, it is on YouTube! Here is another! And there are plenty more!
The intent to ignore Paul is clear and pointed.

I also noticed, after listening to Ron Paul, that even NPRs local advertising is slanted. Whatever is going on in the news, some foundation with a particular agenda advertises about that very political issue...typically leftist. And the reporters are VERY liberal as well. I now understand the demands to take all fed funding---because NPRs reporting and coverage is one-sided.

Sent by Mia | 12:16 PM | 2-12-2008

From the little I have learned about journalism over the past 25 years of my life, it is the responsibility of the media to present the facts as they are. It is not the media, NPR, nor newspapers job to say who is a viable candidate for any office.

Please stick to informing voters on all candidates and leave a candidates viablility up to those of us who visit a voting booth. Since National PUBLIC Radio is paid for, in part, by my tax money, I would request that you do your job and cover all political candidates, not just the media blessed ones from the two main private companies (GOP and Democrat Party).

Sent by Shelley | 1:09 PM | 2-12-2008

I have been a supporter and faithful audience member of NPR for many many years, now that I have proof that they have bowed to the wealthy corruption and ignored Ron Paul's campaign, I am cutting them off of my annual donations, I have turned my channel and I wont give anymore cars to the drives they have. I cant stand corruption

Sent by Cynthia Gallagher | 1:27 PM | 2-12-2008

As inflation remains underreported and NPR misses the mark with concern to Ron Paul and other oft ignored issues such as interventionism and monetary policy, NPR will notice a gradual drop-off of their support, and definitely will not enjoy mine. I'm beginning to lump NPR with the likes of ABCNNBCBS-FOX.

Sent by Sal A | 3:01 PM | 2-12-2008

For the last several years, the regular TV stations and radio stations have degenerated into the gutter; however, our family had found a safe sanctuary in NPR. Now, I am sorry to say, it appears modern times have arrived at NPR as well.

I am not surprised that NPR does not give Ron Paul air time. After all, one of his first actions would be to cut off all government funding of NPR.

Instead of reporting journalistically, NPR journalists are only looking out for their own skin.

Sent by David Durbin | 9:50 PM | 2-12-2008

It is very FOX-like of you to start your article with a foregone conclusion; Ron Paul is grouped into a category of unsuccessful iconoclasts. You're not explaining your biased lack of coverage of Congressman Paul, as much as you are dismissing his candidacy and justifying your shameful bias. It seems pretty objectively amazing to me that this unknown Congressman with a perfectly consistent record of voting against unconstitutional encroachments on our civil liberties as well as consistently voting against unconstitutional over reaching of the federal government's power, can get more military donations than all other Republicans combined. But, of course, like the rest of the national media, It seems that NPR has decided to ignore the ongoing, illegal destruction of a previously sovereign Nation in favor of the Super Bowl football game among other inane topics littering your airwaves these days. How much time have you given to the Gordon Gecko-ish Mitt Romney? Yourself-fulfilling prophecies of doom for Ron Paul's candidacy are an abject dereliction of your duty to provide clear, unbiased coverage of this most important election.

Sent by Patrick Ramirez | 10:17 AM | 2-13-2008

Here's a story for you to print. After the debates showed me another candidate that you and the other media conglomerates failed to mention, I researched him and his policies. I was prepared to support him on that fact alone because they're so strongly in my favor, but then I found his high moral and political values. Those are amazingly backed up by his spotless record. Then I started looking for news on him and found indisputable proof of his being shunned or minimalized due ONLY to his low polling numbers. After looking into why that is, I found many examples of him being marginalized, outright slandered or completely left off poll choices. The only group that unanimously supports him are those that look for their own news so I attribute his lack of polling numbers to the fact that the elders only watch the 10 O'clock news. I have now followed him closely and I can tell you that he has more support by the informed masses (people that do their own research) than any other candidate. Other commenters have elaborated sufficiently on this if you cared to read their words. I doubt that you will, given your bias.

Sent by Todd McKissick | 3:23 PM | 2-13-2008

I have spent the last 6 or so months campaigning both for Ron Paul and against biased news organizations. I recently attended a family reunion where this topic came up and we thankfully turned it to a discussion of actual issues, not horserace predictions. I was able to convince over a hundred relatives and friends in one sitting to vote for Ron Paul and to stop all donations to NPR. We estimated that to be well over $2000/month collectively. Obviously, there were many there representing the older generation. So here's your story. People want morality and integrity back in their government. They want to stop politicians from wasting their money. They want the U.S. to stop being looked at as the world's dictator. They also want the news to give them all sides of every story so they can decide.

Sent by Todd McKissick | 3:24 PM | 2-13-2008

We also mentioned another story that I doubt you will be interested in. We hypothesized that if you (or another major news source) were to air a story saying that Ron Paul had jumped significantly in the polls across the nation and cite examples with credibility, his actual support would grow. It's basically the self-fullfilling-prophecy working in reverse. Where would be the harm in that? After all, you're causing a loss in his support now so why not cause a bump to make up for it? No 'credible examples' to cite, you say? Well, I can guarantee that in half an hour of research, you can find many sources. Email me back directly if you can't and I'll supply you with more than you can handle. You might also look at his 'results' in just this article. Out of 61 comments so far, 58 or 59 are passionate supporters. That's 96% in favor!

Sent by Todd McKissick | 3:24 PM | 2-13-2008

There is NPR bias through omission. I listened to NPR several weeks back about the Republican candidates' immigration position, and the only candidate whose answers have not changed throughout this election process as been none other than Ron Paul... the one guy who was omitted from the commentary.

Shameful. Then to beg and plead for money from viewers and listeners like me while claiming to be unbiased is ludicrous.

Let the free-markets decide the fate of NPR and other public broadcasting joints that serve no significant public service.

Sent by Oliver Y | 7:20 PM | 2-13-2008

Holy Smokes! Check out these post's. My 92 year old mother relies on NPR as her only source of journalistic news. She has NPR going on the radio all day and almost all night long, and yet she has never even heard of Dr. Ron Paul. Fair and un-biased journalism? Not on NPR.

I tried my best to explain to Mom who Ron Paul is and why he is being blacked-out by the likes of NPR. Even an old Radical-progressive like my Mom, understood Dr. Pauls message. She dosent agree with his whole platform, but at least she is informed.
My mother may be 92 years old, but she is ripe for the RON PAUL REVOLUTION.

Oh, and by the way, Mom always financialy supported NPR. $20 bucks here and there is alot to her. At least you could give her, her money's worth.

Sent by MICHAEL | 6:44 AM | 2-14-2008

I have pulled my monthly payment to NPR due to an apparently censureship of Ron Paul. Mr. Siegel covered all other candidates regarding immigration, however he failed to cover Ron Paul. There is no excuse for this in my opinion.

Sent by Jeremy S.Collins | 2:22 PM | 2-14-2008

After reading the posts above and the comments from the Ombudsman, it appears that this is another case of calling a red wall white.
I am so sick of the media telling me one thing when I can see with my own two eye's that it is obviously different.
There is no North American Union...There is no International Trans corridor...Fluoride is good for us...Hilary is not a criminal...John McCain is a Conservative...Barack is Change...It is all messaging. And to think that I used to pay for this!! Disgusting.

Sent by Jeremy S.Collins | 4:23 PM | 2-14-2008

I don't have anything to add to that which has already been said here already. I just want to join the ranks of the disgusted. As said so poignantly by Jackson Browne...

"They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars"

Thanks npr for your staunch support of the status quo.

Sent by Steve Ruckman | 4:37 PM | 2-14-2008

Ironically, in NPR's story about how the debate at the Reagan Library virtually ignored two of the candidates, NPR committed the very same sin of omission. Coverage of Ron Paul is and has been conspicuous in its absence from this and most of the stories broadcast anywhere but the internet.

Sent by Jason Houser | 4:45 PM | 2-14-2008

KUT-FM in Austin is soliciting money this week.

I'll not be donating.

I'm disappointed in the response I received from my feedback to NPR, which pointed me to this page.

NPR is listener-supported, but is not providing a fair shake for any but the anointed 'frontrunners'. It's sad that not only Dr. Paul, but Gravel et al were not given more coverage.

"160 mentions [of Dr. Paul] in 6 months"...? Sounds like a lot at first glance, but what's a mention? Given about 27 days/month at 4 hours a day, 6 months works out to about 38000 minutes of airtime. 160 mentions becomes .004 mentions per minute, or approximately 1 mention every 6 hours. I wonder how many 'mentions' the frontrunners get?

I'll spend my money elsewhere, thanks.

Sent by Paul | 12:45 AM | 2-15-2008

NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO sponsored by Merck Pharmaceutical. Thank you very much. You're by far the most fair and balanced, even more fair and balanced than Fox News.

Sent by Yuan | 3:31 PM | 2-16-2008

I don't see much difference in NPR coverage of Ron Paul compared to other media. I, too am very disappointed in your lack of coverage of Dr. Paul. He has set records, he also tells it like it really is. John McCain has said of Paul that he is the most honest person in politics. Dr. Paul is forthright and worthy of MUCH MORE coverage. Jeers to NPR.

Sent by craig davis | 11:20 PM | 2-16-2008

Today y'all sank to a new low, from merely selective biased reporting to outright lying, when you referred to Huckabee as McCain's "lone remaining challenger."

Sent by Ray Ubinger | 10:25 AM | 2-18-2008

NPR finally did a story on Ron Paul. They covered his HR re-election campaign. They then proceeded to spend more than half the segment covering his neoconservative challenger and airing mostly negative comments from voters against Paul.

Good work, NPR. As always you're out there thoroughly covering the issues in a way that earns your corporate sponsorship money.

Sent by Sellam Ismail | 3:41 PM | 2-24-2008

NPR may think it is different, but when it gets its "news" from the same sources as a lot of the other "news" outlets, it makes it the same. AP and UPI seem to dominate in all the newspapers, radio stations and other media outlets. What happened to investigative journalism? What happened to independent thinking?

Where is the coverage of the war telling the public that it is unconstitutional? Where is the news outcry about the 935 lies that Bush and company told us about it? This piece of news that was briefly told us should be held up EVERYDAY and the lone candidate (Ron Paul) who tells us the truth about it should be vigorously supported in the news. But NO! Don't tell this truth to the public. Don't expose it for what it is!

Britney Spears should run for President. She seems to get more coverage about her lack of the same, in clothing, than Ron Paul who wants to end the unconstitutional war, stop government intrusion into the private lives of its citizens, and reduce a 60% taxation base.

Sent by Milton Bernheisel | 11:32 AM | 2-26-2008

If you have any question as to whether or not NPR is ignoring Ron Paul, check out this post

Sent by Sam | 6:23 PM | 5-17-2008