What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
120 Comments
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -5/+53All five subscribers to the DesMoines register are angry.
- yabooyah, on 12/03/2007, -13/+47Read reactions to this story
Wulfgang wrote:
C'mon Register, your exclusion of Ron Paul is shameful on the face of it. Maybe this is why a recent Harvard study found that 64% of Americans don't trust newsprint to be fair and objective in a presidential race.
"The Newspaper Iowa Depends Upon"? For what - covering the half of the story that suits your agenda? Small wonder the Register hasn't seen a Pulitzer prize in reporting in over 20 years.
Shame on you.
12/2/2007 11:13 AM CST on Des Moines Register
Recommended (2) Report Abuse
stevedasbach wrote:
The decision to exclude Ron Paul from this series is going to look very foolish when Paul finishes 3rd in the Iowa caucuses.
12/2/2007 10:09 AM CST on Des Moines Register
Recommended (2) Report Abuse
lanefiller wrote:
Anyone interested in a funny (but it really happened) column about what Huckabee is really like face-to-face should try:
http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/0 ...
12/2/2007 8:46 AM CST on Des Moines Register
Recommend (1) Report Abuse
Jamesfromvenice wrote:
I was just informed that "surprisingly" Ron Paul is excluded from your presidential profiles on the issues. I can't imagine why?
He is polling higher than Tancredo and Hunter, yet you include them. If you use "time spent" in Iowa, he has spent more time than Guiliani and others - yet you are including them? He is tied with McCain, you are profiling McCain but not Ron Paul. Why?
This is like the 4th obvious shaft this paper has done to Ron Paul and the question begs, why is your paper so afraid and so blatantly dishonest & unequal in its treatment as it concerns Ron Paul?
Wasn't the idea of the "free press" so things like this wouldn't happen. Where special interests didn't take precedence over full disclosure and assuring that the people have equal access to ALL information.
I am saddened, I truly am. This has moved past the comical stage and into some real 'nefarious' and un-american behaviour.
12/2/2007 7:58 AM CST on Des Moines Register
Recommended (2) Report Abuse
LocalVoter1 wrote:
I am appalled that you are going to exclude Ron Paul from your comparison.
FACT: The latest Iowa poll results reported on your website show Ron Paul polling HIGHER than Tom Tancredo.
FACT: In the 3rd quarter, Ron Paul raised 5.2 million dollars nationally for his campaign - Tom Tancredo raised less than $1 million. Source: opensecrets.org
FACT: Iowa voters have contributed more money to Ron Paul than they have to Mike Hukabee, Fred Thompson, or Tom Tancredo. Source: opensecrets.org
FACT: Des Moines voters have contributed more money to Ron Paul than they have to Mike Hukabee, Fred Thompson, or Tom Tancredo. Source: opensecrets.org
When I read your list of important issues in the above article I looked forward to reading an unbiased comparison of ALL of the major candidates' positions.
On some of your most important issues you have listed, Ron Paul's position differs significantly from those held by other candidates.
Why won't you let readers decide for themselves?
12/2/2007 6:04 AM CST on Des Moines Register
Recommended (3)
- Strongo, on 12/03/2007, -3/+20chunter@dmreg.com. email carol Hunter and let her know we didn't need her to cover Ron Paul anyway.
- Pissoff, on 12/03/2007, -4/+204, I canceled my subscription last week.
- stephbangm, on 12/03/2007, -3/+16Simply deplorable! Let's not let them deter us from voting. Remember, if the majority of Ron Paul supporters actually vote in the Primaries, we would most likely win. Even if only 5-8% of the public support Ron Paul like the official polls say, only about 5-10% of the population vote in the Republican Primary! That's why it's critical that we have to work hard right now. Just a few people could make or break this election!
. - thewump, on 12/03/2007, -1/+13Judging someones national relevance by the number of times they visit you is simply pathetic. The system is broken.
- DangerCollie, on 12/03/2007, -1/+12One good thing that may come of this, regardless of what happens with the nomination of Ron Paul, is that there seems to be a greater awareness that mainstream media seems to frequently have a political agenda. Another recognition that seems to slowly be bubbling to the surface is just how much corporate influence there is in our government. We all knew deep down in our cynical selves that it was bad, but hue seems darker now than I remember in my lifetime.
- thewump, on 12/03/2007, -4/+14My email to the editor:
Thanks for your article because it gave me a chance to say this very clearly.
When Ron Paul does well in IOWA, if your paper uses the words "Surprise" or "political upset" it will give me an opportunity to publish this email online, and link to it all over the place from your online edition.
When Ron Paul does well in IOWA, I will be neither surprised, nor upset. You, on the other hand, as a journalistic entity should interpret surprise as a complete and utter failure of your ability to understand your audience. A complete and utter failure to do your job - which is to report things the way they are.
"Ron Paul, who didn't make the cut"? Give me a break. Every sane metric of traction on the Republican side show Ron Paul on the upward march, which means that your forthcoming articles are going to look increasingly ridiculous. If you are going to use "time spent" as a metric then how about using NET time spent - and include the grass roots support time spent by supporters of candidates. I think you might find Ron Paul coming in first. If you honestly think that Ron Paul will not be in the top 6 in Iowa, then I just don't know what to say. If you DO believe that he'll be in the top six, then you've chosen the wrong metric for inclusion.
In a national blind poll where issues, not names, where presented to voters Ron Paul won by a landslide. The system is broken. It should be helping propel someone to the White House who match what people want. YOU are a part of the problem. - missingnoh4x, on 12/03/2007, -0/+9The media manipulating data? Surprising.
- j0ew00ds, on 12/03/2007, -1/+10Why stop a debate at 6 when there are 7 candidates? seems a little fishy to me.
- WilliamDavis, on 12/03/2007, -1/+8It is fishy. They are still trying to ignore Paul. They looked at what criteria they would use and where they could make the cut-off to exclude Paul. They do it in every election, but they usually point to polls. This time, they could no longer point to polls and exclude Paul, so they just picked something different. It's not like the paper doesn't have the room to profile 14 candidates. Please.
- Double0Doug, on 12/03/2007, -1/+7I don’t see why everyone is getting so worked up over this. As a resident of Des Moines, Iowa and a former subscriber to this rag, I can tell you that the Des Moines Register is nothing more than an editorial circle jerk.
These clowns couldn’t investigate a story beyond the short hairs on their own ass. They are reprehensibly one sided on both politics at large and local issues. They lean so far to the political left that many liberals won’t site them as a viable source of information. If you don’t agree with their side of an issue go start your own newspaper.
If the Des Moines Register says it’s Monday, I would still check a cross reference. The whole god damn thing is a giant editorial. - vanza001, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6You're right. But I think it is more futile to run under the name Liberatrian because there is no chance of that party winning or having any effect on the Republican party. We can change the republican party if we dominate the numbers. That is the process in a nut shell. They won't change unless we overwhelmingly demand them too. The message most republicans belive in is exactly what Ron Paul belives in. What the republicans who run the party want however is a neo-con agenda and we will not succeed until the majority of the other Republicans want them gone. That can't happen unless there is an alternative.
- atrain15, on 12/04/2007, -0/+6I think the problem is that they aren't really using time in the state as a factor. Ron Paul has as much time in the state as McCain and more than Guiliani yet they are both being covered while he is not. So, aside from being a pretty arbitrary and meaningless criteria, it's disingenuous to claim that was the methodology.
- Genady, on 12/03/2007, -2/+7Neat idea. Won't work in Iowa. We don't have a primary. Might be why he's mostly skipped the state. Caucuses require a candidate to have viability in a prescient in order to be represented. Try New Hampshire.
- andshewas, on 12/03/2007, -1/+6Who really cares how many times he visited? I think a paper should report on a candidate's response to issues, voting history, morals and whatnot...not how many times he's graced the state with his presence. That's just silly. Not everyone gets out to see candidates when they visit, either...so what's the big deal? They should be reporting on all the candidates, not just the ones they like. That's only fair.
- inactive, on 12/03/2007, -2/+7They probably didn't include Ron Paul because he doesn't agree with their completely socialist agenda. The "priority" cause of the editorial board is health care and how "Our nation must do more to make health care affordable and accessible to everyone". Then public education, then taxation with the aside that our greatest responsibility is to rescue the medicare program. Maybe they should change their name to the "Des Moines Local Communist Party Propaganda Machine"...
- WilliamDavis, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5Many of them were only voting for democrats to keep republicans at bay. Plenty of would be democrats are Paul supporters now.
- dmann, on 12/03/2007, -1/+6I used to work at this paper. Its gone WAAAAY down hill. I remember when it was considered one of the top ten papers in the nation.
Needless to say, that was years ago.
But putting quotes around the word newspaper implies that you doubt it is a newspaper. Hell, the Weekly World News is a Newspaper. Thats not what is in question. - thewump, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5I agree.. especially the F#CK YOU bit.
- WilliamDavis, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4"i.e., they have too much discretion about what they do. If only they could be held to some higher standard. Oh wait, then they'd be regulating a private corporation and they wouldn't be libertarians."
No. It's that they claim to be one thing when they're really something else. Libertarians don't support corporations lying to people. There's absolutely nothing wrong with exposing it. (not some ***** about government control like you're suggesting.) - CannedMango, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4I emailed them after reading the story, this is their response:
"Just acknowledging I have received and read your message. Do realize that the package prompting your e-mail didn't appear on a news page; it's editorial commentary, where we do make judgments. Dr. Paul has received significant news coverage in the Register."
So apparently their moral-loophole is to call it an editorial and then omit away. - slashbot, on 12/03/2007, -2/+6Frankly I think it is BS that the rest of the nation sits by while Iowa insists it monopolizes the primary coverage by demanding it be first in the nation to vote.
- Frei, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5"Also, F#CK YOU."
That should help get him votes. - cracker42, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4Hunter, Carol to me
Just acknowledging I have received and read your message. Do realize that the package prompting your e-mail didn't appear on a news page; it's editorial commentary, where we do make judgments. Dr. Paul has received significant news coverage in the Register.
On 12/3/07 4:56 PM, you wrote:
Mrs. Hunter,
I've never fully understood why so much importance is placed on the Iowa caucus or how it has such an impact on the Presidential election. But whether or not I understand it doesn't matter. What matters is that the people of Iowa are given fair and responsible reporting that they can use to make an informed, and apparently important, decision. So how, in the name of responsible journalism, can you exclude one candidate from your paper in a SERIES of articles about the candidates simply because of "research time and space on the page"? Give me a break! You work for a newspaper and you can't do research and fit things on a page?!?!? There are only 8 Republican candidates, and you can cover 6 but not the one who is raising more money than ANY of the others? I really, really want answers to these questions.
Sincerely,
**** ***********
(a real person, not some "spammer") - JJCDAD, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5It doesn't show up if you're using AdBlock with your Firefox. The recently ***** their whole website up with a *ahem* redesign.
- MrPotato, on 12/03/2007, -2/+6Sorry to burst your bubble old chum but you are sadly mistaken. Most of us don't despise the Democrats - we welcome more and more of them into the fold every day.
- inactive, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4The anti-Paul media bias is becoming almost comical as it has become ever more transparent.
I wonder how many papers will run a bogus; "CLINTON WINS" headline on election day? - MrPotato, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4Damn, there's a new zinger "wingnut". JointVenture, you cannot paint all of us with that broad statement because the vast majority of us are quietly supporting him and doing what we can as tastefully as possible. All we are trying to point out is that the Des Moines Register has missed an opportunity and in so doing they have made it that much easier for us to raise hell about it. Please keep in mind that we feel passionately about our man Paul but there will always be, in any group, one or two who are over zealous.
- Frei, on 12/03/2007, -3/+6Lets hope he doesn't hire you as campaign director. Need to see Ron Paul or ask him questions "***** YOU USE GOOGLE"
- WilliamDavis, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Sure it is. If they've always used the same criteria in the past, then it pretty much clears them of being manipulative. You sounded like you'd prefer that. If they used other criteria in the past, then this may be exactly what it looks like. It's not like Paul being purposely excluded from things is new.
- scsp85, on 12/03/2007, -5/+8It's the principle, a strange method was used to root out Ron Paul even though his campaign is alive and well in Iowa. Also, F#CK YOU.
- asdfuiop, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4Did they disable/remove the comments link at the bottom of the article???
- JJCDAD, on 12/03/2007, -5/+8Maybe he doesn't feel the need to spend all his cash blowing smoke up your ass like the other candidates? Everything you need to know about Ron Paul can be found in his congressional record. So ***** off!
I am from Iowa BTW. - stephbangm, on 12/03/2007, -5/+8We have to become delegates to get Ron Paul the GOP nomination; As delegates, we'll be picking the GOP nominee just like the electors in the electoral college pick the President; Delegates determine and decide who the GOP nominee is---it's that critical!
Let them try to manipulate Ron Paul delegates! They know we won't flip-flop our support for Ron Paul and we'll be voting for him all the way!
So Become a Delegate or Ron Paul will NOT be President
http://delegate.notlong.com
^
Approved by the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee: Jeff Greenspan, Regional Coordinator - thewump, on 12/03/2007, -5/+8Oh.. you like to SEE people there. ***** the message? ***** the policies? Is it all about who's willing to come and yank your ego? The system is broken.. You're part of it. Some of us are smart enough to decide whose best without sitting down with them over a ***** cup cake.
- badgrzz, on 12/03/2007, -2/+5You do realize that the piece your'e oh-so-upset about not being objective enough was on the...wait for it...wait for it...editorial page. I hope that all Ron Paul supporters reply to fairly raised objections by saying "***** you". That will make the end result of his having 0 electoral impact, and your having wasted your money, all the more certain.
- Frei, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4Call your local GOP office if you live in Iowa.
- stephbangm, on 12/03/2007, -2/+5You must not know how to read. If you actually could, you'll see links for Iowa caucus information as well as an Iowa caucus handbook (with secrets). The reason why America is in such bad shape is because of illiterates like you.
Here's the link (if you can read it): http://www3.webng.com/ronpaul/delegatestates.html Go to Iowa. It's at the bottom. You click your mouse on the scroll bar down to get to the bottom. It's not hard but it may be for you. - Mutton, on 12/03/2007, -2/+5Whoa, they're actually going to talk about the issues!
"Picking six on the Republican side was less clear-cut, but the deciding factor was time spent in Iowa."
Oh wait. :( - impei, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2http://duggmirror.com/2008_us_elections/Leading_Io ...
- buckrogers1965, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2As a Republican I only see one candidate that comes close to Republican values of small government, states and individual rights and free trade. Ron Paul is the only Republican running.
- aduzik, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3As a resident of Des Moines, Iowa and a current subscriber to this newspaper, I can tell you that the Des Moines Register is much more than an editorial circle jerk.
- Frei, on 12/03/2007, -2/+4Yeah man you can trust everything on the internet. In case you're too stupid to realize he was talking about hearing the message straight from the horses mouth and having personal interaction. But if you want you can be spoon fed ***** through these series of tubes.
- yabooyah, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2To those who mind that newspaper was in quotes, I respectfully agree, as it was written so in the heat of fury. Is there a way to edit the title?
As to the rest, I responded to the 2nd reply to the first comment (mine) thusly:
+2 diggs by mstoneburner 4 hours ago
Thanks for responding to your own story in the first response, man, that's awesome all submitters should start doing that.
Hide 1 reply to this comment (most popular has 1 digg)
+1 digg by yabooyah 1 minute ago
Sorry, I haven't submitted much and have seen that done occasionally by others. I will take your displeasure into consideration in the future.
To me, the facts pointed out by the early commenters were integral to the understanding, for the otherwise uninformed, of why the criteria was 'bogus'. I see now that some responders still argue this conclusion.
Had I to do it over, I would remind readers to consider the inordinate importance of an educated Iowan electorate and point to the second paragraph of the article, wherein the author writes, "Every election of an American president is important; this one feels pivotal." I believe most Paul supporteers would agree with this and be encouraged to see someone who might normally call us "nutty" for saying so, so openly in agreement with us.
As we next find out that this significant source of information for Iowa voters has predetermined that this election of unprecedented importance is actually only important enough to warrant the 'research time and space on the page' for 12 of the 16 current candidates...
[pause]
...I would next point out that when the author states 'but the deciding factor was time spent in Iowa,' it implies that this factor was one of various parameters -- the vast majority of which Paul is surely not "below' Tancredo and Hunter and, by some important conventional metrics, now carries the valuable weighting of 'front runner' status.
In illustrating this to those who might otherwise be uninformed (gee, how does that happen) I would trim the original comments I included down to:
FACT: The latest Iowa poll results reported on your website show Ron Paul polling HIGHER than Tom Tancredo.
FACT: In the 3rd quarter, Ron Paul raised 5.2 million dollars nationally for his campaign - Tom Tancredo raised less than $1 million. Source: opensecrets.org
FACT: Iowa voters have contributed more money to Ron Paul than they have to Mike Hukabee, Fred Thompson, or Tom Tancredo. Source: opensecrets.org
FACT: Des Moines voters have contributed more money to Ron Paul than they have to Mike Hukabee, Fred Thompson, or Tom Tancredo. Source: opensecrets.org
And though I will concede the value of online polls, I would add that straw poll results -- whose participants tend to be those who have already become educated in matters of which the author hopes to educate the Iowa electorate in this most important of elections -- would normally be given a great deal of weight if the results were supportive of the status quo. Here, of course, he is easily considered a (if not, the) leading candidate -- over what is now a significantly large sample. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
I don't know who the other active candidates that were deemed unworthy are but, based on observations and assumptions, I might have also changed the title of submission to "Supporters of Gravel, (Dodd/Biden/Kucinich)?, Hunter(?), and Paul, and proponents of democracy, justice, equity, freedom, journalistic integrity, and America might want to be aware of this." But that seems long.
Everyone reading this with more than cursory interest comprehends the significance and can discern that the criteria used was, in fact, 'bogus,' -- meaning not done with genuine concern for a genuine methodology, as portrayed by the author. Do they have the 'right'? Of course. America still mostly has it's freedoms -- so far. If they wanted to not be 'called out' as 'bogus' they could have simply said, 'oh, and we decided to ignore some candidates based on our own lack of affinity for them'. They still would probably have received some 'blowback' but I don't think 'bogus' would be at the top of the list of words we would be discussing now. Most likely, that's why they tried to be covert. I agree with them that this election is extraordinarily important and, therefore, felt as complelled to point to their transgression as they purport to be compelled to educate.
It's about integrity. And that is why I have some measure of respect for all of these men, some of which I could vote for, some not:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.joebiden.com/
http://www.dennis4president.com/
http://www.gravel2008.us/
http://teamtancredo.org/
(and Bernie Saunders, actually)
If you are late to the party and reading this and truly want to know why Ron Paul's supporters respect him as no other in our lifetimes, and will vote for him in spite of differences on particular issues, get your google on and make your own informed decision. But be cautioned that there just might be some familiar sources widely deemed 'trustworthy' that mean to subjugate your findings. Even if that's bogus, man.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
If it is meant to be. - inactive, on 12/03/2007, -7/+9Shouldn't the title read "Newspaper uses it's own criteria in selection, Ron Paul supporters angry cause it didn't suit them"
- amiches, on 12/03/2007, -2/+4Alive and well? He's in a distant fifth. See above.
- JJCDAD, on 12/03/2007, -2/+4"Dr. Paul has received significant news coverage in the Register." WTF?
I would be amazed if Ron Paul has been mentioned 10 times in the Des Moines Register. While Billary gets front page everyday. What a joke! - JJCDAD, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3I found it here
http://www3.webng.com/ronpaul/IowaCaucusHandbook.p ... - MalenfantX, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3How are those emotional problems working out for you?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is