What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
337 Comments
- Minarchian, on 08/24/2008, -14/+161"The other candidates are toast without their media coverage"
That's sooo true. - Seldon2639, on 08/24/2008, -18/+160Wow, guys. This video (yes, I did watch all of it) makes more than a few leaps of logic which aren't grounded in reality. The most major one is the assumption that the number of google searches made correlates directly to the popularity of the candidate. He uses the example of football, which would make sense, except "interest" and "popularity" are not synonyms. I googled Ron Paul a while back, since I was interested in finding out more about him (as I was in all of the candidates), that doesn't mean I actually supported him. Similarly, while media coverage certainly could influence the amount of interest about a candidate (thus causing more searches), that doesn’t prove an influence on actual popularity. Google trends is accurate about what people are searching for, what they’re curious about, but not necessarily what they approve of.
The second thing is that the number of youtube videos does not correlate to how much people like an individual, nor his popularity. Look up the number of videos for “Britney Spears”, and it’s over 300,000 (seriously). The Beatles have about half that number of videos (165,000). That might be unfair though, since the Beatles existed long before Youtube. The Goo Goo Dolls (more popular certainly than Britney) have only 28,600 videos.
Actually, what’s really funny, is if you repeat the trend analysis using “Ron Paul” (the most commonly used search for him), and the other candidates last names (the most popular searches for them), you see a really different result. Searches for “Obama” were more common than those for “Ron Paul” at most points in the past 12 months, even before the major media attention was given to Obama (seriously, look it up on Google Trends). There were only a few weeks in mid-December where “Ron Paul” was more popular than “Clinton”, and (in fact) if you look at “Huckabee” versus “Ron Paul”, Paul actually gained a bigger jump when there was media attention for Huckabee than Huckabee did.
That last part makes me wonder if this person noticed that if he searched using the most common ways to refer to the candidates, his point was wrong, so he skewed the data.
Also, not for nothing, but at best, Ron Paul still only got around 15% in a primary. - inactive, on 08/24/2008, -22/+127You can do this research yourself and get the same evidence. This experiment is repeatable.
- Catspaw, on 08/24/2008, -13/+107Thank goodness we have the Internet to provide us with real news and information.
- inactive, on 08/24/2008, -16/+78This video has more evidence of the censorship of Ron Paul by the media.
http://brokencrystal.com/?p=153 - Bagos1, on 08/24/2008, -19/+77The bury Paul brigade will be here soon, saying it's all computer generated spam, that RP supporters don't really exist and all that survey stuff is electronically manipulated.
....oh yeah and that he is a racist. - peacepower, on 08/24/2008, -20/+76Ron Paul is the one candidate who would fight to end the gravy train for all the big money interests: the Fed, fractional reserve banking, the military-industrial complex, the oil industry, the ethanol scamsters, the pharmaceutical industry, the prison industry, and all our client nations such as Israel. Of course, they're going to order the media - which they support with massive advertising spending - to treat Ron Paul as a pariah, a quack, and out of the question. All the special interests who have grown rich off our labor and our taxes want the gravy train to go on forever. Ron Paul is anathema to them.
Ron Paul is the candidate who would truly level the playing field in favor of the average citizen. The MSM's bread is buttered by the corporate and governmental elite, not the common news subscriber. So whose views do you think the media will endorse as being best for the country? "He who pays the piper gets to call the tune."
Jerry Day does a great explanation of what's going on in this video. Thanks for posting it, Broken Crystal. - gmdmartyr, on 08/24/2008, -17/+69Answer: "Rothschild's"
www.educate-yourself.org - inactive, on 08/24/2008, -13/+59This just proves what most of us already knew.
- KOSmurfy, on 08/24/2008, -19/+62I hate to be the one to spoil the party here, but this proves little more than that internet popularity doesn't correlate well with the general public's opinion. Basically, the data presented is insufficient evidence to make the claims in the video and in this thread. This doesn't help the image of Ron Paul fans, of being paranoid conspiracy theorists.
- inactive, on 08/24/2008, -11/+47Companies like GE own the media. GE's primary business is making parts for the US military. War is profitable. Do you think the media that GE owns is going to report in favor of the war or against the war if their primary business/income is provided by war?
GE is only one example.
http://www.ge.com/products_services/media_entertai ... - PseudoThink, on 08/25/2008, -8/+41Correlation does not imply causation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_ ...
I was a huge Ron Paul supporter during the primaries (I made the site www.winwin08.org to support him, which is now only available on archive.org). I helped convince numerous friends and relatives to vote for and support him. As much as I agree that mass media coverage contributed significantly to his loss, and with the hypothesis that mass media significantly influences the outcome of elections, I wholly disagree with your claim to "proof" that the media controls or manipulates the election. Your Youtube and Google trends analysis is interesting and relevant, but it does not remotely "prove" media manipulation. Correlation does not imply causation.
I think it's more accurate to say that the data implies that there was greater interest in Ron Paul on Internet sources, and in demographics that use the Internet for their news. I think the results of the primaries simply show how small those demographics are when compared to the US population as a whole.
These kinds of faulty arguments only serve to make Ron Paul advocates seem more like crazy conspiracy theorists. Outing media manipulation and corporate control of it is an important goal, but making blanket claims that are wholly untrue hurts that effort more than helping it. - nasalspray, on 08/24/2008, -3/+29While I don't question the lack of MSM coverage of Ron Paul and its general avoidance of the man, tracking Internet trends on Youtube and Google in order to gauge his popularity with the electorate (vs. coverage in the MSM) has one bright and shining flaw.
The Internet does not run the purple mountains and fruited plains from sea to shining sea then stop dead. In the end (i.e. November), the only "popularity" that truly matters in the election of the President of the United States is popularity with the American people.
If Google were to filter all "non-U.S. citizen-used" IP addresses out of its results, Google Trends may show something quite different. Same with Youtube - filter out all videos created by non-Americans (as well as all "Rick Rolls" and other video spam), and you may find something quite different.
I just don't see these two websites as absolutely reliable indicators of one's "popularity".
Aside: why am I getting motion sickness while I type this comment? Isn't it possible to create a text box that doesn't bounce all over the place with each character typed beyond the initial size of the box? Man oh man. - SethEllis, on 08/24/2008, -4/+30It's an interesting experiment, but I think that the author's logic is somewhat flawed. Google and YouTube can only indicate internet popularity of a candidate. That is far from representative of the entire country. It simply shows that Ron Paul supporters are more into their candidate, and are more active on the internet. You cannot translate these numbers into people voting in the polls.
- Seldon2639, on 08/24/2008, -9/+33Sort of. In order to get his results, you really do have to tailor your search pretty well. Instead of "Obama" you have to specify "Barack Obama". Given that most searchers would just put in Obama (since his website is the first to come up in that search after the google links), this experiment is a bit spurious. But, if you look at the google trends using "obama" versus "ron paul" (both of which are the most popular ways in which to refer to them), you get a much different result. Same for "Clinton" versus "Ron Paul." Also, not for nothing, but if you look at the actual spikes in media attention, most of those are when one of the candidates won a major primary. I doubt that if Paul had won any primaries, he wouldn't have gotten attention.
- fac3less, on 08/25/2008, -2/+26If you weren't such a ***** retarded monkey repeating the same broken record you'd take 30 seconds to research the fact that Ron Paul didn't pay for the blimp -- a 3rd party did.
Dumbass. - monsieurginger, on 08/24/2008, -11/+34As a Jew and as a member of the Jewish community, I'm afraid that we are losing control of the media.
- inactive, on 08/25/2008, -3/+23Ron Paul vs. Obama turns up a very different and arguably more accurate result, as Seldon2639 said.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+obama&c ... - inactive, on 08/24/2008, -5/+23Very true, but there are a number of others, such as Dupont, Rockefeller, Collins, Carnegie, Ford, ect.....
- rentmitchum, on 08/24/2008, -3/+20While I agree that the election is largely controlled by who the media decides to show, this isn't a scientific experiment. Youtube is populated by many many people who can't even vote. The internet in general falls in love with trends, and half of the Ron Paul fans didn't even have any idea of his politics. You can't judge this on internet popularity. Have you ever seen youtube comments? Come on, they're worse than digg's. They're ***** unintelligible and more-or-less a joke online.
It's also not scientific data because people tend to search for people when they have no clue who they are. On Google, I just searched Joe Biden for example. I don't know who the hell he is, he's just some old guy. Now I know he's an old guy who was largely responsible for establishing a "Drug Czar" which is something I don't appreciate. Do I google John McCain? No, I know who he ***** is, he ran in 2000. Most of the people online who are internet savvy are likely searching for information on democrats, as most tech-savvy aren't rednecks and are going to vote democratic, or call the whole thing a sham and wish for a real Libertarian candidate or something.
My opinions don't matter in this, so the point is, this isn't scientific data. - vanguardanon, on 08/25/2008, -0/+17Great points but you missed another key point. Internet users are often young and well-to-do. Ron Paul does well with that set, so does Obama. It's not a good group to survey because it misses my parents.
- ProfessorSYM, on 08/24/2008, -3/+19Ron Paul for President of YouTube.
- fractalman, on 08/24/2008, -6/+21Rupert Murdock is CFR, just like Obama, and McCain, why else would the MSM let McCain slide on so many issues. We need to destroy the major media corporations, and return to independent broadcasting.
- kemp34, on 08/25/2008, -1/+15"Ron Paul isn't censored by the media"
Well, not totally, but strategically, in terms of editorial slant. This journlism.org data highlights that Paul received 0% major news media coverage in the key week leading to Super Tuesday:
http://www.journalism.org/node/9610
Clearly this would affect perceptions of electability and viability.
"the fact that no-one voted for him was because no-one heard of him"
See point one above. You contradict yourself in your first two statements.
"he was talking about cooky things like the Fed"
Ok, discussing who owns, controls, operates and benefits from the Federal Reserve money, banking and credit system is "cooky" - what a joke. CLEARLY this is an important topic for any people who wish to achieve freedom and prosperity. Perhaps you don't care about such things?
"where did all his money from his campaign go? Into a feckin blimp"
Pure ignorance. The blimp was funded by an independent organization, not the Paul campaign.
You sound like someone who has been duped by the media. Or perhaps just unaware in general. - subigo, on 08/25/2008, -1/+15I have no problem with Ron Paul, but this video has a problem...
Just because I search for Ron Paul on Google, doesn't mean I'm voting for him. - Richandler, on 08/24/2008, -11/+25Um.. We do. They would make no money if we stopped watching.
- asus2000, on 08/25/2008, -2/+15Ron Paul came in above McCain in several of the first primaries and still was not televised.
Turn off those idiot boxes people. I haven't watched a single TV show since this happened, since I realized they're cheating. - inactive, on 08/25/2008, -2/+15If all of this is true, and the most popular search term should win,
then I'm voting
Boobs and Ass '08 - virtustempus, on 08/25/2008, -3/+16yay, i was about to write this but you saved me the time
this video is borderline propagandistic, if not just simply poor logic
I think ron paul is great and i voted for him & donated to his campaign, but this video is not worth believing - pleweickor, on 08/24/2008, -11/+23This is the one reason why our country's economy is falling apart. the big oil corporations fund the candidates that will help them to stay in power over the economy. in turn, the media is paid o promote that person. and in the end, that person is the one elected.
- JeremyGrieves, on 08/24/2008, -3/+14It's not going to be easy to get america to turn off its TV
- Reasonableguy, on 08/24/2008, -7/+18While you make many valid points, the curious thing is that despite massive internet interest, the mass media still didn't pay the slightest bit of attention to Ron Paul's campaign. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is very odd.
- tweedius, on 08/25/2008, -3/+14People who use the internet do not translate to votes.
- BurningSand, on 08/24/2008, -1/+11I think monsieurginger was making a joke. (?)
- inactive, on 08/24/2008, -5/+15Companies like GE own the media. GE's primary business is making parts for the US military. War is profitable. Do you think the media that GE owns is going to report in favor of the war or against the war if their primary business/income is provided by war?
http://www.ge.com/products_services/media_entertai ...
That is what I think. - sryan8913, on 08/25/2008, -7/+17Regardless the data shows Ron Paul should be Barack's opponent not john mccain
- ELCad, on 08/25/2008, -1/+10No one voted for Ron Paul???? He's got 14 pledged delegates and maybe up to 35 in total. That's a lot more then Rudy got with all his media attention.
- KSUdesigner, on 08/25/2008, -1/+10Ron Paul could also have more search results BECAUSE the media isn't reporting on him as much. People hear his name but see nothing about him on the news, so naturally they'll google him to find out what he is all about. Ron Paul is definitely more popular than the media portrays him to be, but the evidence provided in this video does not prove in any way that he is more popular than the rest of the candidates.
- monsieurginger, on 08/24/2008, -1/+10At least someone gets it.
- dromeditor, on 08/25/2008, -1/+9"The internet is for the intelligent"
Wow. I see you're new to the Internet. Welcome! - Khast, on 08/25/2008, -3/+11In the 2000 election, Fox news announced President Bush officially won and was our new President 5 ***** HOURS BEFORE THE POLLS CLOSED....(lessee...I live in Washington State...there is 4 time zones....this means they announced the winner before they closed polls in Washington D.C.)
Yet...they had to do all sorts of recounts in various states, the ***** chad dispute, ect.....
Yeah, the media controls the election, I'd say.... - monsieurginger, on 08/24/2008, -1/+9The joke actually comes from Sarah Silverman. I read it in the JT.
- inactive, on 08/24/2008, -14/+22There's no question that the media can not and will not buy Ron Paul! It's just a matter of time before the Rothschild domain falls to pieces.
- magicman0201, on 08/25/2008, -0/+7Thats right! i dont know what i would do without the onion to guide me!
- Synova, on 08/25/2008, -2/+9Not to mention there is no reason to think that the cause/effect is the way he claims. The candidates get more popular as the media reports about them? Perhaps. More likely, the media just covers what is popular. That's how you get ratings, you show what people want to see.
- cersad, on 08/24/2008, -0/+7Well said, nasalspray. The other nuance that this guy ignores completely is the difference between the demographics of America at large versus the demographics of Internet users. After all, compared to the targets of polling data, frequent Internet users are more likely to be:
1) younger (statistically less likely to vote)
2) living in a household with a computer and Internet connection (there goes all of the less-wealthy families who rely on public libraries, although their voting record might not be the greatest either)
3) UNDER 18 and therefore unable to vote--the polling that the news media follows tends to exclude minors!
It's not that the claims in this video are untrue so much as the fact that this argument is very weak logically that bothers me. - asus2000, on 08/25/2008, -0/+7Did you forget about the Diebold effect?
- KOSmurfy, on 08/24/2008, -8/+15I watched it. As I already explained, the data isn't sufficient evidence for the claims made.
"The video shows a chart comparing the mainstream media coverage to the internet coverage"
No. It compares the number of youtube videos with the candidates' names in the name/description/tags. It also compares the number of google searches made for the candidates' names.
Did you miss the part where it was implied that Ron Paul was by far the most popular presidential candidate? This claim was based on youtube videos. That's such a ridiculous argument that I shouldn't have to spell it out like this.
It was also implied that the number of google searches on a person is proportional to popularity among the general public, but failed to take into account the multitude of possible explanations other than the one they were aiming for. - clarient, on 08/25/2008, -1/+8Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama on Google Trends:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+barack+ ...
Ron Paul vs. Obama on Google Trends:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+obama&c ...
The difference in the data is enormous. Day had to have known - there's no way he innocently looked over the fact that most people refer to Barack Obama simply as Obama. Leave the information manipiulating to the mainstream media. -
Show 51 - 100 of 341 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is