By now the various ways in which the lamestream media understate the impact of and support for Ron Paul are legion. A good deal has been made in a recent critique of an AOL poll with regard to Dr. Paul’s views about the Civil War. The controversy is over a poll conducted by AOL after Dr. Paul’s appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press last Sunday and the way AOL has allegedly doctored the results.
That poll centered around remarks made by Dr. Paul concerning Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. I would argue that his remarks were taken out of context to paint Dr. Paul in a bad light; although not as blatantly as remarks made recently by Will Smith were twisted by certain blogs. In any case, the question was loaded so the poll can’t be accurate with respect to “agreeing” with Dr. Paul. The topic was raised by Tim Russert on Meet the Press and Dr. Paul handled it quite well if you read his remarks in context.
Whether or not AOL subsequently doctored the numbers to cover up the fact that more people agreed with Dr. Paul is secondary. Of greater significance is why they chose to key on a question concerning events that happened over 140 years ago rather than the other 20+ minutes of the interview which dealt with current issues. In my opinion they are grasping at straws in an effort to paint Dr. Paul as racist.
Lamesteam media in drag
AOL is owned by Time-Warner, one of the lamestream media’s largest corporations, and therefore it will always distort information about Ron Paul. The various ways they did so in the case of the Civil War poll are somewhat subjective and/or hard to prove.
I’d like to provide an example of how they have understated support for Dr. Paul in a manner that, while somewhat subtle, is undeniable. Actually, what they did was to overstate the support for his Republican rivals. I would further allege that one purpose of the Civil War poll is to draw attention away from another AOL poll that asked people which candidate they support for President. Ron Paul won that poll handily, but AOL is doing what it can to bury that fact.
Viagra™ for the also rans
Here is a screenshot of that poll’s results as of this morning (December 28):
What’s wrong with this picture?
As you can see, a quick glance at the AOL chart would give the impression that Ron Paul merely nudged out most of his rivals. However, the bars aren’t drawn to their correct scale. This is all the more egregious since the poll itself directs participants to see how well their candidate is doing compared to the others. Participants will get a better picture by simply noting the complexion of the U.S. map. The 45 states in Ron Paul’s olive green say a great deal despite AOl’s efforts to downplay the obvious. This map is a textbook example of the concept of broad support.
I’ve created my own, much less fancy chart to illustrate how AOL overstated the results of Ron Paul’s rivals by making their bars larger than they should be:
A look at my chart provides an accurate view of the relative support for the candidates. When you combine the accurate bars with the color of the map you will understand how thoroughly Ron Paul owned this poll. AOL doesn’t even have the integrity to place a disclaimer at the bottom of their chart stating that the bars aren’t drawn to the correct scale.
Well, I had a bit of fun this past Sunday, March 9th. It seems my good friend Ernie Hancock was off minding some R3volutionary duties in California and he needed someone to cover his Sunday morning radio show. So naturally he called me. Yeah, right.
Imagine, if you will, a scenario in which high government officials were in the business of acquiring and selling the secrets of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to foreign governments. These foreign governments then passed the information to other, more dangerous regimes and, possibly, even to Al-Qaeda.