Google Trends proves mainstream media '08 election corruption

Great post.

BIG MEDIA has failed again.

GET THIS ON TV TODAY!!!!

Not because I support R.P. rather this is a great example of how the public and the perception of the public are so different when put under the lens or corporate media.

This is the reason why I wish Mr. Day was able to show this without going into Ron Paul. This goes well beyond the marginalization of RP. It shows how the media shapes the view of the masses –successfully!

June 14, 2008

I did searches on YouTube for Ron Paul, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain.

John McCain got about 36,500 videos.

Hillary Clinton got about 100,000 videos.

Ron Paul got about 126,000 videos.

Barack Obama got about 127,000 videos.

Barack Obama beats Ron Paul!

Also if you spell Barack Obama's name with two r's, Barrack Obama, you get about 1,830 videos.

but this doesn't prove that the media is not corrupt, only that things have changed a little since this video was posted on April 19, 2008.

I don't believe this is an accurate measurement because your sample only considers people searching on the internet. There is a huge generation gap to be taken into account: as a 21-year-old, Current-watching college student, I upload my own videos to the internet--meanwhile, my parents can't even spell Youtube.

Searching for information does not imply preference or support. Maybe more people were searching for Ron Paul because no one knows who the hell he is-- thanks to the dwindling mainstream media coverage.

@halestorm20

"Searching for information does not imply preference or support. Maybe more people were searching for Ron Paul because no one knows who the hell he is-- thanks to the dwindling mainstream media coverage."

Thanks for stating my point.

-------------------------

The point of this video wasn't to create some popularity fight between Obama and Ron Paul. Don't worry folks, your man Obama is as good as in the White House. This is what I was afraid of. A whose more popular contest.

The point of this is that the media has chosen and will choose who gets the American voters attention. Thereby discounting the concept of true choice.

That doesn't only apply to Ron Paul though.

The same thing has been done to John Edwards, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr.

True choice hasn't been allowed yet in the history of this country, since it only allows representatives to choose.

That's what the delegates and electoral college is all about.

The media just go with the prevailing winds and common wisdom.

I was thinking about this during the Clinton/Obama noise off over the past few months. I kept thinking that, certainly, the media was pushing Clinton into the forefront the whole time. At least when it all started the talk was as if she was the obvious choice even from the right wing pundits. I have a hunch ( only my hunch) that something failed this time in the big media push to put Clinton on top. I think her "staying the coarse" (a Bush term she actually used) may have partly been driven by something outside her campaign. I don't know. A bit fishy. bloop bloop.

Argon18

By your rationale, one would assume that the representatives already have their choices set in place without taking into consideration what their constituents desire for the leadership of these United States.

Without equal coverage. Without equal exposure. Without equal opportunity on the defining platform known as television, how is the "common wisdom" of the population determined by the representatives?

The system was supposed to work, and it could still. If they allowed fair and unbiased ways for the candidates to be represented. This way regular citizens could lobby for the support of their candidate of choice to the delegates. Instead we were fed, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and McCain.

You can say the same for John Edwards, Ralph Nader, and Bob Barr. Of course, I can say you would be downplaying the popularity of Ron Paul on the internet and how that would have been magnified on TV, if he had been given equal coverage and even the media endorsement that Hillary & Obama enjoyed for months. Hell, even McCain isn't getting the media endorsement. All you have to do is look at the headlines on CNN.com & MSNBC.com and even FOXnews.com.

As people have commented. Not many people knew who Ron Paul was. You think that's because people like Halestorm20's parent dont' browse the web for information? You betcha! They get their news from the trusty box in the living room.

In spite of the attempted marginalization of Ron Paul on TV, many took the initiative to discover his message by alternative means, the internet. One could only imagine the impact TV would have had on his previous campaign, delegates, and the collective wisdom of the nation.

The people who pay the representatives large sums of money and other enticements most likely already do have them picked way in advance. It's just a question of how much the representatives are influenced by that isn't it?

The convential wisdom of the media pundits before the primaries was all for Clinton to walk away with the nomination.

Obama also used the internet to get his message across and even more to get people organized to get more people registered to vote that hadn't been.

Many of the media exit polls in New Hampshire and other places were wildy off so that the media predictions for those primaries were very inaccurate.

After 12 in a row and Obamamania was in full swing the prevailing wind shifted from Clinton and then the convential wisdom was for Obama. Most of the media were calling for Clinton to give up.

I feel sorry for John Edwards that he didn't get his chance with the media ignoring him also as much as I do for Ron Paul but both had messages that should've been heard.

I don't think that Ron Paul was any different than some of the others so it's not all about him because they could've have been just as popular

I watched Fox news for some time now and i never heard of Ron Paul

I do not think many people will follow Ron Paul. Ron Paul has a history of racist statements. Just google search "Ron Paul + Racist" and you will see what I mean.

I agree with you twodee. Something happened. I am sure someone will write a book about it soon enough.

In my opinion, I would say it had more to do with the brand rhetoric set forth by the Obama campaign for "Change", and how the American people responded to the concept of change. I see that message becoming stronger as we approach the general election.

I feel it would have been a tough sell for the DNC to sell G. Bush Sr./Bill Clinton/ G. Bush Jr/ Hillary Cllinton Presidents back to back to the American people when they've been sold on the concept of change. This is why I think she stayed in so long. She was waiting for the message of change to die down or find a way to attack the concept. She kept trying to switch the discussion back to experience, security, and healthcare. Then she came off sounding like Bush. Not change at all. And since the Dems want an easy sell in this election. That's when the media made the shift to Obama for them.

Search Google for Obama. Click the "Obama Campaign Website" Sponsored link that comes up at the top. Listen to his welcome video. "Change".

Search Obama in YouTube. All of his campaign videos are labelled and talk about "Change". Hillary isn't change and the DNC knows that.

Just my thoughts on the marketability of an oh-so-very important word in todays culture.

I both disagree and agree.
I agree that Ron Paul was severely marginalized by mainstream TV/Radio/Print media. However, the TV/Radio/Print media demographic is not the same as the Internet demographic as many others have pointed out. I'm 41 or relatively old for the NET demographic (though I do look younger). RP, Edwards, and Nader were all mostly ignored because their policies/beliefs are a factual threat to large corporations future ability to monopolize 90% the TV/Radio/Print media. This form of corporate media corruption is called corporate fascism which started when Reagan's Admin ended the fairness doctrine and other pro-corp deregulation.

Consider whether the whole scheme of things, the big picture, didn't include some think-tank authorities deciding on 'the way it's gonna be'...maybe they were pushing Clinton knowing she'd be easier to beat than say Edwards...or maybe they thought Obama and/or Clinton would be easier to beat than Edwards or any of the other Dems, Mr.K. a real warrior for the people. Remember, the GOP must have someone who tows the party line same as W... R.P. is not that guy, he has too much ax to grind. They can't have that...that's why they chose McSame. It's self explanatory...so, look at the big picture and you definitely see corruption and manipulation, but not quite the way you guys are looking at it...

I think that the initial push for Obama actually backfired on them. It Gave Obama the momentum he needed and turned into something much bigger than they ever imagined...

i over heard a young guy discussing politics in the grocery store. i aksed what candidate he liked and he said Ron Paul..this was in early summer 2007.

i told him then the republicans and the media would never let Ron Paul see the light of day.He laughed
after all i was just an old guy who didn't understand how popular Ron Paul was becoming on the internet.

when internet popularity is used to select candidates to the republican party let me know.

that will be real change

Ron Paul also has a best selling book. Selling more books than the "front runners"

Let's face it, this is more about money flow than it is about politics. The 'powers that be' do not want the money flow to change. Therefore, they will do whatever it takes to manipulate the media, the passive masses, to elect a ditto duo...just like the bush/cheney pair...they have made more money in the last 71/2 years then they ever made in any two, maybe four terms...maybe eight...

They'll change the horses in midstream. They just don't want to change the stream...

How is a return to 1890s policies, which are totally incompatible with the urban life prevalent today, considered progress or change?

Given the current administration can best be described as reactionary, this is hyper-reactionary.

And if anyone finds the methodology in that video sound, you really need to find a stats or research methods class quickly.

Technically though, they didnt pick Obama over Hillary, she won the popular vote, it was the screwed up democratic delegate thing that did. Besides, you cant prove that it was mainstream media, maybe one person saw something then passed it on and so on and so forth.

This vid brings up a good point. But why didn't those millions of Paul searchers vote for him? Is the media that powerfull?

BTW Google Trends: Awesome!

Try Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton
Gas, Hybrid
kucinich, obama

etc.

Ron Paul = Raw Deal

Crazy google.

ah CarlosIsDown brings up a great point, The online political canididate searching youtube googling audience doesnt necessarily reflect the values of the entire demo.

This is the best article I've read on current.

EEEK!!!

Whatever happened to the principles of Research "Peer Review".

Ron Paul is composed of simple and common American names while Barack and Hillary are pretty rare. compare it with the news and the search engine is a bit more selective.

Mr. Day's theory might be right, but I don't think so, It might be, and probably is, a statistical artifact answer a question very different from what Mr. Jerry Day claims he is asking.

I am not saying that the media is not being manipulated (it is of course) , only that this essay is not a substantial proof.

Investing the research into global warming probably is more worthwhile.

"never trust a statistic you haven't fake yourself"

Although I find it a very interesting point,
I did the same research now that he did, and yes in 2007 Ron Paul was far ahead of the others, but right now, Obama is far ahead in Google hits, Youtube Videos and Media. Which means that when the election season hadn't started yet, that's when Ron Paul didn't get the attention needed.

But I do feel that ever since Obama has come up as the democratic leader, the states (media, internet, etc) has changed for the better, ever since the end of the bush admin. is surely in sight, the media is freeing its grip from Faux News...
And websites such as Talkingpointsmemo.com - huffingtonpost.com - bravenewmedia.com have com up and really started to change the agenda of the mainstream media...

interesting video though....

Come one guys. This video doesn't prove anything- all it does is provide more fodder for people who already think that the "MSM" is corrupt. Showing that there was more google searches for "Ron Paul" doesn't show that he was more popular- it shows that people were more curious about him. Maybe the fact that there was more searches for Ron Paul was BECAUSE there was less media coverage of him. People definitely hear more than enough about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton every day on the evil "MSM." Also, this could just say more about Ron Paul supporters than anything else- maybe they are more web savvy (here's tip: they are).

I think there's a less conniving, non-evil explanation for why Obama and Clinton (II) got more coverage- their stories were more interesting. But I agree with the notion that the coverage of presidential candidates is FAR from ideal- I mourn the loss of the Fairness Doctrine every time I can bring myself to watch political coverage on CNN or Fox News.

Murdoch of Fox News admits manipulating the news for agenda

http://current.com/items/89012308_murdoch_of_fox_news_a...

So he's saying the media has driven this election season. This is news? Tell us something we don't know.

This is a great example of media corruption en masse. They got me too. In retrospect I'm a little upset at myself for allowing myself to get caught up in the hoopla.