Please note: I am in no way, shape or form affiliated with MSNBC or any of their partners. I am an independent writer, and am exercising my First Amendment.
In an article written by M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com, titled “Ron Paul: the incredible shrinking candidate”; an argument is made in regards to Ron Paul supporters outrage at the media's attempt to ignore the candidate. This argument is best compared to that of a grade school tattle tale trying to pass on some guilt to another class mate in hopes that some of the focus will be taken off of them.
“At the risk of annoying supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who believe — and argue fervently — that the mainstream news media don't pay attention to their candidate, it must be noted that Twitter and Facebook don't, either.”
-M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com
Johnson does not deny that the media ignores Ron Paul, he only pushes the blame to the side. Stating that:
“However much his partisans may complain, it's not just the media that are ignoring Ron Paul.”
-M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com
Facebook and Twitter; though capable of being powerful outlets to our society, are social networking sites. Social networking of course can include talking about candidates that are running for president of the United States. They can also be home to the candidates themselves and fan pages for said candidates. But does social networking alone qualify as a sufficient source for needed knowledge to make an informed decision this upcoming election? Considering “More then 70% of Facebook users come from outside the United States.”-Ken Burbary. It seems evidence points to no.
Though Johnson seems too imply that a social networking site should be as informative to our Nation as the actual News Media, I fear the answer is quite the opposite. Social networking sites are for people to freely post and share their “opinions”. Opinions of course, should play no roll in true, objective journalism. So for Johnson's sake, why don't we take a look, just to clear a few things up. First, let us look at the definitions of social networking, Media, and News so that we might better define the purpose of both.
Social Networking as defined by http://dictionary.reference.com
noun
A network of friends, colleagues, and other personal contacts.
Media as defined by http://dictionary.reference.com
noun
the means of communication as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely.
News as defined by http://dictionary.reference.com
noun
a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months.
I understand that the definitions above may seem a tad bit inappropriate. However, they are not listed in this article to talk down to anyone, rather to justify a point that needs to be made. With that said, we can then look at our subjects mission statements. A Mission Statement being;“a sentence describing a company's function, markets, and competitive advantages; a short written statement of your business goals and philosophies” -http://www.entrepreneur.com
Facebook's 2012 Mission Statement: Facebook's mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.
Twitters Mission Statement:To instantly connect people everywhere to what’s most important to them.
Though members may be able to connect to groups and friends with similar beliefs on such sites as Facebook and Twitter; they are not designed or published with the soul purpose of presenting objective material in an unbiased manner. Instead, as mentioned before; they allow people across the world to share their opinions. Though msnbc.com lacks a clearly defined mission statement, they do provide this in their “about us” section;
MSNBC.com: “The Msnbc Digital Network is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver the most compelling, diverse and visually engaging stories on your platform of choice. The world-class brands featured in the digital network include msnbc.com, TODAY, NBC Nightly News, msnbc TV, NBC Sports, Newsvine, EveryBlock and BreakingNews.com. We provide something for every news consumer with our comprehensive offerings that deliver the best in breaking news, original journalism, lifestyle features, commentary and local updates down to the block level.”
While Johnson argues that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter should have a share of the blame in regards to ignoring Ron Paul, it is not the mission nor the responsibility of these sites to provide information to a national audience about presidential candidates. In contrast; the company that Johnson represents clearly advertises itself as delivering “the best in breaking news” as well as being “diverse”. There is nothing diverse or breaking about ignoring some candidates while glorifying others. This company also advertises “something for every news consumer”. What about the consumers who “argue fervently” that they want to see more Ron Paul on air?
M. Alex Johnson, gives examples of when the media DOES cover Ron Paul and his policies in a fair manner. This is the media “exposure” that he lists. CBS, March 16 , stltoday, march 15 , and 5ksdk, March 15.
What M. Alex Johnson doesn't include in this article are any of the many examples that show the media doing exactly what he argues against; this being ignoring the Candidate. For Example MSNBC ignoring the results of their own poll, InfoWars. Other examples can be found at TheBlaze, Anti-Tyranny News, Business Insider, The Daily Caller, The Daily Paul.
He then takes this one step farther by giving graphs that show how many times Paul, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are mentioned via Facebook, and Twitter. Though I do not question the credibility of these graphs, I do question the relevance they play in Johnson’s attempt to imply that it's okay for the mainstream media to ignore candidates because their not being talked about on a social networking site. With an estimated 94.7 million U.S users on Facebook; an estimated 14.4 million of those users not yet able to vote; and a total U.S population of an estimated 312.8 million; how can a social network, only reaching roughly 25% of the U.S population (most of which are only on the site to share and talk with friends), be expected to supply the same amount of information as a network that reaches hundreds of thousands of possible voters looking to make an informed decision?
“Accusations that news organizations are ignoring Paul's presidential campaign are an organizing principle of his supporters, who take to Facebook and Twitter to complain that the only reason Paul isn't leading is a "media blackout."”
-M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com
The media blackouts are not an organizing principle of Ron Paul supporters alone. From Fox News attempts to crush John Kerry's candidacy against George Bush, to the modern day pampering and glorification of candidates who only represent the status quo; flip flop on all major issues to better suit their electability; and offer no real change from the current presidents policies; the media must be, and will be, held accountable for their misrepresentation and manipulation of information that should be given to the people regardless of what “ratings” that news may bring.
For M. Alex Johnson's full article “Ron Paul; the incredible shrinking candidate”, visit http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/19/10723331-ron-paul-the-incredible-shrinking-candidate?chromedomain=nbcpolitics
Sources:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/19/10723331-ron-paul-the-incredible-shrinking-candidate?chromedomain=nbcpolitics
http://drdianehamilton.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/top-10-company-mission-statements-in-2011/
http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-ignores-winner-of-debate/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jon-stewart-rips-media-for-ignoring-ron-paul/
http://www.antityrannynews.com/apps/blog/show/9924314-usa-today-ignores-two-polls-showing-ron-paul-in-the-lead
http://www.businessinsider.com/whys-the-media-shafting-ron-paul-and-ignoring-ndaa-and-sopa-dangers-2011-12
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/19/cnns-john-king-ignores-ron-paul-met-with-boos/
http://www.dailypaul.com/174118/cnn-and-politico-admit-ron-paul-media-conspiracy
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/03/16/ron-paul-holding-back-his-endorsement/
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/paul-hesitant-to-back-romney-if-he-wins-nomination/article_b0fdeaa8-739b-5e99-9898-18c1cf75c860.html
http://www.ksdk.com/news/world/article/310471/18/Paul-says-hes-noncommittal-about-backing-Romney-
http://www.twitterrati.com/2011/01/11/twitters-new-mission-statement/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32027560/
http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/tag/msnbc/
http://www.kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-revisited-2011-statistics-2/
http://dictionary.reference.com
http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/term/82494.html
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/12/30/us-population-2012-nearly-313-million-people
In an article written by M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com, titled “Ron Paul: the incredible shrinking candidate”; an argument is made in regards to Ron Paul supporters outrage at the media's attempt to ignore the candidate. This argument is best compared to that of a grade school tattle tale trying to pass on some guilt to another class mate in hopes that some of the focus will be taken off of them.
“At the risk of annoying supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who believe — and argue fervently — that the mainstream news media don't pay attention to their candidate, it must be noted that Twitter and Facebook don't, either.”
-M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com
Johnson does not deny that the media ignores Ron Paul, he only pushes the blame to the side. Stating that:
“However much his partisans may complain, it's not just the media that are ignoring Ron Paul.”
-M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com
Facebook and Twitter; though capable of being powerful outlets to our society, are social networking sites. Social networking of course can include talking about candidates that are running for president of the United States. They can also be home to the candidates themselves and fan pages for said candidates. But does social networking alone qualify as a sufficient source for needed knowledge to make an informed decision this upcoming election? Considering “More then 70% of Facebook users come from outside the United States.”-Ken Burbary. It seems evidence points to no.
Though Johnson seems too imply that a social networking site should be as informative to our Nation as the actual News Media, I fear the answer is quite the opposite. Social networking sites are for people to freely post and share their “opinions”. Opinions of course, should play no roll in true, objective journalism. So for Johnson's sake, why don't we take a look, just to clear a few things up. First, let us look at the definitions of social networking, Media, and News so that we might better define the purpose of both.
Social Networking as defined by http://dictionary.reference.com
noun
A network of friends, colleagues, and other personal contacts.
Media as defined by http://dictionary.reference.com
noun
the means of communication as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely.
News as defined by http://dictionary.reference.com
noun
a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months.
I understand that the definitions above may seem a tad bit inappropriate. However, they are not listed in this article to talk down to anyone, rather to justify a point that needs to be made. With that said, we can then look at our subjects mission statements. A Mission Statement being;“a sentence describing a company's function, markets, and competitive advantages; a short written statement of your business goals and philosophies” -http://www.entrepreneur.com
Facebook's 2012 Mission Statement: Facebook's mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.
Twitters Mission Statement:To instantly connect people everywhere to what’s most important to them.
Though members may be able to connect to groups and friends with similar beliefs on such sites as Facebook and Twitter; they are not designed or published with the soul purpose of presenting objective material in an unbiased manner. Instead, as mentioned before; they allow people across the world to share their opinions. Though msnbc.com lacks a clearly defined mission statement, they do provide this in their “about us” section;
MSNBC.com: “The Msnbc Digital Network is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver the most compelling, diverse and visually engaging stories on your platform of choice. The world-class brands featured in the digital network include msnbc.com, TODAY, NBC Nightly News, msnbc TV, NBC Sports, Newsvine, EveryBlock and BreakingNews.com. We provide something for every news consumer with our comprehensive offerings that deliver the best in breaking news, original journalism, lifestyle features, commentary and local updates down to the block level.”
While Johnson argues that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter should have a share of the blame in regards to ignoring Ron Paul, it is not the mission nor the responsibility of these sites to provide information to a national audience about presidential candidates. In contrast; the company that Johnson represents clearly advertises itself as delivering “the best in breaking news” as well as being “diverse”. There is nothing diverse or breaking about ignoring some candidates while glorifying others. This company also advertises “something for every news consumer”. What about the consumers who “argue fervently” that they want to see more Ron Paul on air?
M. Alex Johnson, gives examples of when the media DOES cover Ron Paul and his policies in a fair manner. This is the media “exposure” that he lists. CBS, March 16 , stltoday, march 15 , and 5ksdk, March 15.
What M. Alex Johnson doesn't include in this article are any of the many examples that show the media doing exactly what he argues against; this being ignoring the Candidate. For Example MSNBC ignoring the results of their own poll, InfoWars. Other examples can be found at TheBlaze, Anti-Tyranny News, Business Insider, The Daily Caller, The Daily Paul.
He then takes this one step farther by giving graphs that show how many times Paul, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are mentioned via Facebook, and Twitter. Though I do not question the credibility of these graphs, I do question the relevance they play in Johnson’s attempt to imply that it's okay for the mainstream media to ignore candidates because their not being talked about on a social networking site. With an estimated 94.7 million U.S users on Facebook; an estimated 14.4 million of those users not yet able to vote; and a total U.S population of an estimated 312.8 million; how can a social network, only reaching roughly 25% of the U.S population (most of which are only on the site to share and talk with friends), be expected to supply the same amount of information as a network that reaches hundreds of thousands of possible voters looking to make an informed decision?
“Accusations that news organizations are ignoring Paul's presidential campaign are an organizing principle of his supporters, who take to Facebook and Twitter to complain that the only reason Paul isn't leading is a "media blackout."”
-M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com
The media blackouts are not an organizing principle of Ron Paul supporters alone. From Fox News attempts to crush John Kerry's candidacy against George Bush, to the modern day pampering and glorification of candidates who only represent the status quo; flip flop on all major issues to better suit their electability; and offer no real change from the current presidents policies; the media must be, and will be, held accountable for their misrepresentation and manipulation of information that should be given to the people regardless of what “ratings” that news may bring.
For M. Alex Johnson's full article “Ron Paul; the incredible shrinking candidate”, visit http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/19/10723331-ron-paul-the-incredible-shrinking-candidate?chromedomain=nbcpolitics
Sources:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/19/10723331-ron-paul-the-incredible-shrinking-candidate?chromedomain=nbcpolitics
http://drdianehamilton.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/top-10-company-mission-statements-in-2011/
http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-ignores-winner-of-debate/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jon-stewart-rips-media-for-ignoring-ron-paul/
http://www.antityrannynews.com/apps/blog/show/9924314-usa-today-ignores-two-polls-showing-ron-paul-in-the-lead
http://www.businessinsider.com/whys-the-media-shafting-ron-paul-and-ignoring-ndaa-and-sopa-dangers-2011-12
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/19/cnns-john-king-ignores-ron-paul-met-with-boos/
http://www.dailypaul.com/174118/cnn-and-politico-admit-ron-paul-media-conspiracy
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/03/16/ron-paul-holding-back-his-endorsement/
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/paul-hesitant-to-back-romney-if-he-wins-nomination/article_b0fdeaa8-739b-5e99-9898-18c1cf75c860.html
http://www.ksdk.com/news/world/article/310471/18/Paul-says-hes-noncommittal-about-backing-Romney-
http://www.twitterrati.com/2011/01/11/twitters-new-mission-statement/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32027560/
http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/tag/msnbc/
http://www.kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-revisited-2011-statistics-2/
http://dictionary.reference.com
http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/term/82494.html
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/12/30/us-population-2012-nearly-313-million-people