Whatever happened to Ron Paul's campaign, which seems to have disappeared? Here's one answer: the media in this country buried it. For a look at the power of media persuasion and its ability to focus our attention on whom they want us to look at, check out this clip of the relative popularity of the candidates from another perspective.
What happened to Ron Paul's campaign?
By Pete - Posted on May 13th, 2008
This is interesting because I did NOT know about Google trends. I knew that Ron Paul had kind of dropped off the face of the earth, so to speak, but this is an interesting perspective on why.
no matter who your candidate is. Nobody wants to be manipulated on this level.
Let me preface by saying that I'm not arguing about how popular Ron Paul is or isn't. Nor am I arguing about how manipulated by media we are or are not.
What I am arguing, though, is that this video is far from definitive on either of those topics, despite trying to be an authority on both.
Here's a simple fact: The Internet does not equal Reality.
Internet access is not distributed equally across age, race, geography, class, or education level.
Even though Google Trends and Youtube are, as the commentator says, "separate sources," they both are measuring the same thing: The amount of EXCITEMENT on the INTERNET for a given candidate.
Here's what they're NOT measuring:
1. The amount of SUPPORT on the INTERNET.
2. The amount of EXCITEMENT in REALITY.
Google Trends is measuring one thing: How many people have typed those terms into a Google search box.
His YouTube metric is measuring one thing: How many people have created You Tube videos in support of the candidate.
These metrics are woefully inadequate when measuring true support in our population. That's why we still hold ELECTIONS instead of relying instead on GOOGLE QUERIES.
It's always been well known that Ron Paul has a strong following on the internet.
Finally, more than once the commentator, on Google Trends, showed how increases in press coverage of Obama and Clinton led to the explosive growth in their respective Google Trend.
Here's another simple fact: Correlation does not imply causation.
We should all be skeptical of media sources. This one included.
You're absolutely right Shane. What concerns me is that YouTube is user-driven. So when the users are in charge, Ron Paul gets more attention than he does when the news media (liberal or otherwise, because the Republicans don't wanna talk about him either) is in charge.
I'm more excited than anything about this Google Trends thing, I could have used something like this for a couple of research papers in college...
Also, I agree with you that correlation does not imply causation. But, at the least, the correlation is interesting. I know that "these metrics are woefully inadequate when measuring out true support in our population..." but it's interesting to see what happens when the populus is in charge of media rather then the news moguls...
It also should be noted that, if you YouTube search for any of the candidates, not all of the videos are in support of that person. Some of them are anti-candidate videos... So the fact that Ron Paul has the most videos doesn't meant they were all in favor of him.
That's not to say anything about Ron Paul himself... just noteworthy, I think...
Good to see you back, Shane.
I think you last few guys are missing the point of the video by concentrating on YouTube. The narrator, Jerry Day, starts out by talking about YouTube, but he brings that up only as a lead-in to his real point: the correlation between increased media coverage of a candidate and increased Google searches on that topic.
Go back and review the entire video. He states that there is a definite connection between increased media coverage of a candidate and the number of searches on him. The more media coverage, the more Google searches. YouTube really has nothing to do with his thesis.
The next question, does increased media coverage/Google searches translate into greater support, Jerry Day doesn't answer that question. Day does say, however, that Paul's large presence on the Internet was not generated by media coverage, unlike Obama/Clinton/McCain, whose presence grew only when they were spotlighted by the media. Paul's hits on Google were many times those of the other candidates until they were picked up by the major media. "They are toast without their media coverage."
Any fair-minded observer might deduce that there is also a correlation between media coverage and popularity.
"This study explores the influence of news media on the voters agendas, preferences, and criteria of candidate evaluation. In the cognitive regard of media effects, the news media successfully set the voters agenda for one of the three candidates. The tone of the media coverage of the campaigns also significantly influenced the voters attitudes toward the candidate for whom agenda-setting effects occurred. The voters further employed the candidate's qualifications and character in the news media as the standards for candidate choice."
Media Effects on Voters' Political Attention, Preference, and Judgment
"Investigate how editorial slant—defined as the quantity and tone of a newspaper's candidate coverage as influenced by its editorial position—shapes candidate evaluations and vote choice. We assess the slant of campaign coverage and its effects on voters. We find compelling evidence that editorial slant influences voters’ decisions. Our results raise serious questions about the media's place in democratic processes."
The Impact of Media Bias: How Editorial Slant Affects Voters
On Ron Paul's campaign. He's still in it: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/324972