I don't think I ever posted this video which shows how much mainstream media coverage impacts the thinking of mainstream citizens. It's a very interesting video, about 7 minutes long.
While I think he makes some good points there is one massive logical flaw in his fundamental premise.
"I googled you" popularity is not that same thing as "I would vote for you" popularity. If you did a google trends search using the terms "cancer" and "my weight in emeralds" I'd be willing to bet that cancer would be the most popular but that's doesn't mean it's the one of the two people want the most. It just means it's the one they are interested in learning more about.
Point being Ron Paul's internet popularity may be less in spite of his lack of main stream coverage but because of it. He got just enough attention for people to know he was around but not enough for anyone to really know what he was all about and so to the internet we go to find out more. Obama, on the other hand, has been covered from every angle under the sun and the mainstream media has more that satiated most people thirst for information on him.
If the point of the video was to say that Ron Paul was actually the most popular candidate, that's ridiculous. I think, however, the point was that his actual interest to voters was worthy of greater mainstream media coverage and, thus, the media plays a lot larger role in deciding the elections than many would like to imagine.
The mainstream media didn't quench the public's thirst for Obama, according to the numbers, they created it.
There is a lot of equivocation in the video--popularity already having been pointed out by AJ--but one point of error that must be noted. The internet does not give more accurate reporting than telephone interviews. While it may have more data, one person may easily search "Ron Paul" 100 times, while this remains only one person. Second, it limits the demographics as only people who use internet for political searches input data. This is not the whole demographic of the voting population. The vast majority of people who vote, though, do have and use phones. In hte last Canadian election, several internet polls proved incredibly unreliable when compared to the old fashioned phone surveys.
Once again, I guess the point I am taking from this is different than the points you are taking. My point is simply that the media plays a large role in forming who people consider a contender.
They named the true contenders before the first vote was cast.
4 comments:
While I think he makes some good points there is one massive logical flaw in his fundamental premise.
"I googled you" popularity is not that same thing as "I would vote for you" popularity. If you did a google trends search using the terms "cancer" and "my weight in emeralds" I'd be willing to bet that cancer would be the most popular but that's doesn't mean it's the one of the two people want the most. It just means it's the one they are interested in learning more about.
Point being Ron Paul's internet popularity may be less in spite of his lack of main stream coverage but because of it. He got just enough attention for people to know he was around but not enough for anyone to really know what he was all about and so to the internet we go to find out more. Obama, on the other hand, has been covered from every angle under the sun and the mainstream media has more that satiated most people thirst for information on him.
If the point of the video was to say that Ron Paul was actually the most popular candidate, that's ridiculous. I think, however, the point was that his actual interest to voters was worthy of greater mainstream media coverage and, thus, the media plays a lot larger role in deciding the elections than many would like to imagine.
The mainstream media didn't quench the public's thirst for Obama, according to the numbers, they created it.
There is a lot of equivocation in the video--popularity already having been pointed out by AJ--but one point of error that must be noted. The internet does not give more accurate reporting than telephone interviews. While it may have more data, one person may easily search "Ron Paul" 100 times, while this remains only one person. Second, it limits the demographics as only people who use internet for political searches input data. This is not the whole demographic of the voting population. The vast majority of people who vote, though, do have and use phones. In hte last Canadian election, several internet polls proved incredibly unreliable when compared to the old fashioned phone surveys.
Once again, I guess the point I am taking from this is different than the points you are taking. My point is simply that the media plays a large role in forming who people consider a contender.
They named the true contenders before the first vote was cast.
Post a Comment