Is the NY Times Ignoring Ron Paul Deliberately?

This report was first broadcast on Thursday Jan 05 2012, the day after the Iowa caucus, where Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum each won 25% of the vote. Ron Paul got 21%, Gingrich 13%, Perry 10%, Bachman 5% and Huntsman 1%.

For the New York Times, Michael D. Shear reports from Des Moines about the results and the prospects ahead for the candidates in the Republican presidential nomination process.

He talks about the Iowa caucus separating a top tier from a bottom tier. The top tier he recognizes as being comprised of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. The bottom tier he says includes the rest of the candidates and begins to concentrate on them.

He talks about Rick Perry who the race he says really affected. Next he talks about Michelle Bachman who he says finished dead last. Though Bachman finished second-last ahead of Jon Huntsman, he discounts Jon Huntsman as he was not among the candidates in Iowa for caucus day.

He then returns his attention to whom he calls the 'top two' - Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum and analyzes their victory. He then names Newt Gingrich as Rick Santorum's other rival and speaks about Gingrich wanting to attack Santorum.

Ron Paul finally gets one small passing remark at the very end. His narrow finish is not mentioned. There is no footage of him played. His prospects and campaign are not discussed.

Is the NY Times Ignoring Ron Paul Deliberately?

For the latest media black-outs: http://www.reddit.com/r/ronpaulcensored
We report because they decided not to.

The report featured here is called 'The Caucus | On to New Hampshire' and is currently available on the NY Times' website here:
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2012/01/04/us/politics/100000001262558/the-cau...

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ron Paul
• Iowa
• New Hampshire
• caucus
• debate
• black out
• New
• York
• Times
• NY Times
• The New York Times

[iTellYouNoLie]

yes, completely ignored, and on purpose.

[BeantownJim]

I use to work for the NYT.They are a zionist neocon establishment which owns other newspapers in democratic areas too

[Vote4RonPaulLiberty]

In case any of you are interested talking Ron Paul action figures are available for purchase. All proceeds go to support efforts to elect Ron Paul.

ronpaulactionfigures . com

[ISISMainframe]

Electronic Voting MUST be STOPPED Now before it is too late. The election must be accountable and AUDITABLE at every step. How hard can it be to count paper. It also blows me away how they DESTROY the BALLOTS within 2 years of an election. They make you keep your TAX papers for 7 years so they can AUDIT you down to the last dollar, yet they cant afford a shed to store paper that is used to DETERMINE who will RUN the ENTIRE COUNTRY..WTF!..DIEBOLD MUST BE SHUTDOWN or Ron Paul will not get in.

[10elozano]

The NYT is terrible. They are anticatholic, antimuslim, and, now I see, they are anti-Ron Paul. Maybe we should start monitoring their advertisements and stop buying their stuff.

[tadpoleposition]

The Jew York Times ignores truth. 

[mrbarr911]

Actually Huntsman was ignored, Paul was mentioned 3:08 ... PAUL 2012!!!

[MrThebluemeow]

thanks for the wonderful unbiased report, NYT. scumbags.

[TheCarsonLeet]

wtf NYtimes?? screw you!

[sattar1412]

i think this is when the kid mentioned Dr. Paul 3:03 and it seems as if they did it by mistake, the kid kind of did not say it right away