RSS 2.0 FeedCNBC’s Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters
by Doug MataconisIn the wake of Tuesday’s debate, CNBC ran an online poll that Ron Paul seemed to be winning. However, after several hours, the poll was taken down and removed from the network’s website.
Today, Alan Wastler, the managing editor at CNBC.com explains why they did it:
Dear folks,
You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.
That’s based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.
Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.
So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew … 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours … and Ron Paul was at 75%.
Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven’t seen him pull those kind of numbers in any “legit” poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.
The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can’t help but admire that.
But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest “show of hands” — it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn’t our intention and certainly doesn’t serve our readers … at least those who aren’t already in the Ron Paul camp.
Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed “few” can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of “the many,” I get a little worried. I’d take it down again.
Sincerely,
Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com
We’ve seen this happen before. Pajamas Media excluded Ron Paul from it’s poll for several weeks in the spring and summer due to what it called spamming of the poll by Ron Paul supporters. It happens here on a regular basis in that we get more traffic and comments related to Ron Paul than any other topic. And, quite honestly, it’s not hard to believe that it would be easy for a small group of committed supporters to flood a poll run by a low-ratings network like CNBC with votes. More importantly, it was their survey, and they had the right to do whatever they wanted to do with it, including ignoring it’s results entirely.
At the same time, though, I’ve got to wonder why the folks at CNBC didn’t realize that something like this would happen. It’s happened before after other debates on Fox and MSNBC, and it’s a clear indication that, notwithstanding the fact that he remains in the basement in the scientific polls, Ron Paul clearly has a vocal and committed group of supporters on the web, more vocal and committed than any of the other candidates.
Whether that online support will ever translate into significant votes in the primaries remains to be seen, but there wasn’t any reason for CNBC to shut down the poll because Ron Paul was getting alot of votes, except perhaps because it indicates just how few people were watching their network Tuesday afternoon to begin with.
“…the fact that he remains in the basement in the scientific polls,…”
The word “scientific” is not synonymous with what you, and the rest of MSM, seem to identify as “legit”. I think the word best used to describe conventional polling methods would be superannuated. The alleged “national polls” that consistently peg Paul somewhere in 2% – 4% range are conducted by calling only people who are registered GOPers with land lines, which smacks of 1970something. It seems to me that if the MSM were really interested in achieving an accurate pulse reading, they would find a way to bring their methods up to speed with the real world… but I don’t believe that is their true objective. I hope the GOP, the DEMS and MSM are ready for some “domestic blowback” next year on election day.
Comment by Bill — October 12, 2007 @ 12:21 pmThe assumption that grassroots will not flock such surveys is somewhat peculiar. The question the editor needed to ask him self was were are the activist of Romney, Giuliani and Thompson. The answer might indicate what they don’t want to discuss.
Comment by Rogel — October 12, 2007 @ 12:25 pmCNBC set up a debate during which Rep. Paul was asked fewer questions and given less time to talk than most of the candidates. After the debate CNBC conducted a poll. The poll shows that Rep. Paul won the debate (despite the way that the debate was set up) and their response when they didn’t get the result they wanted was to take the poll down. I don’t usually believe in conspiracies or in media bias but it appears that the debate and the poll were conducted in less than an even handed manner. In their mind its not possible that Ron Paul won the debate. (After all they set up the debate in such a manner that it shouldn’t be possible!) No, I don’t think Ron Paul has a chance of being nominated but its not CNBC’s job to make that determination.
Comment by Bob — October 12, 2007 @ 8:24 pm[...] CNBC’s Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters (The Liberty Papers) [...]
Pingback by Democracy, apathy, and loud minorities « Blunt Object — October 12, 2007 @ 10:52 pmIt is a powerful and meaningful message when the supporters of a particular candidate are cross-party and aggressively more active about the candidates message. This is a signal of change and an inspired and increasing number of Americans. The media (most of the mainstream) belittles Paul. Why exactly can’t they accept that Ron Paul DID win the debate. The media have made the decision for the American people already- Ron Paul isn’t important and his message isn’t worthy of their attention. This is deliberate and obvious bias. CNBC is looking more and more like Fox News.
A the least, this poor treatment of Ron Paul will wake up some concerned individuals to the dangers and saturation of bias in our media.
Comment by Jeremy Parfitt — October 22, 2007 @ 10:10 pm