More Times Union Bias Against Ron Paul

Today the Times Union staff went over the top. They stuck their fingers in their ears, their heads in the sand, and any remaining journalistic integrity into a dark and smelly hole. The front page has a big story (not as big as the Giants of course) about Super Tuesday. It shows five presidential candidates. On the Democratic side they show Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the Republican side they show McCain, Romney and Huckabee. No Ron Paul. Inside – page A4 – they have a more detailed breakdown of “leading Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.” They break down the same five, again with no mention of Ron Paul.

Let’s see. Ron Paul raised more money in the 4th quarter than any other Republican candidate – and double what Huckabee has raised the entire campaign. Ron Paul reported more cash on hand than any other as well – actually more than the three mentioned Republicans combined. Ron Paul placed second in both Nevada and Louisiana, and a close third in Maine. Mike Huckabee won Iowa and 2nd place in South Carolina. That’s better, but not that much better.

While a lot of major media show some bias, these days it seems like Huckabee is also getting less coverage as well. For some reason the Times Union has singled out Ron Paul. This is hard to understand. I do get the perception that, at this point, he seems to have only a small chance of winning. But the same is true of Huckabee – that’s why other major media are reducing coverage of him as well.

Locally there is a lot more visible grass roots activity for Ron Paul than Huckabee — the Ron Paul signs are everywhere; sign wavers annoy people at many major intersections; there are so many people in the local Meetups that they had to split up. Huckabee doesn’t even have a full delegate slate for New York. He is missing a lot of alternates. He has no delegates at all for district 10, only one delegate in congressional district 3 and only two delegates in districts 5 and 8. Ron Paul has a full slate of three delegates and three alternates in all districts.

So if they’re going to exclude Ron Paul, why include Huckabee? The Times Union has demonstrated a clear and disturbing bias against Ron Paul for this entire campaign. They deprived their readers of information about a candidate, and deprived Ron Paul supporters of a fair hearing for our candidate. Why?

It would be easy to just say they’re evil, but that’s too simplistic. For me, it makes more sense that they just aren’t intelligent enough to deal with him. He doesn’t fit within their extremely limited world view – for them Republicans support the war and Democrats oppose it. Never mind that most congressional Democrats (including Hillary) voted for the war. Ron Paul’s views on the Constitution defy the kind of binary black/white analysis that is routine for the Times Union, and the same goes for a variety of topics such as federalism, monetary policy, and so on. So it’s probably not a consciously evil choice to exclude him from coverage. More likely it’s due to their lack of intellectual capacity.

You might think I’d be worried that the Times Union will somehow retaliate against me, but no. They were extremely biased against our campaign in Guilderland and we won in the face of that. The voters are smarter than that. In the end, Times Union readers don’t really count on the Times Union for meaningful political news. It’s okay for entertaining stories about cats, and the occasional local story, but most readers know that the coverage is limited and they need to do their own research if they want the truth instead of biased fluff.

For more information on media bias, the Times Union and Ron Paul, I wrote last month about the bias against Ron Paul by both the Times Union and Fox News, and back in April about the Times Union’s bias.

Comments are closed.