Ron Paul not only beat several well-known candidates in Nevada, but he also consistently outperformed both Giuliani and Thompson in almost every state leading up to this primary. Yet, the New York Times chose to ignore his presence, omitting his name completely from their coverage while including candidates with lower results. Even more egregious, Paul’s performance in Nevada far exceeded that of Senator Edwards, beating him by a 3 to 1 margin in percentage points. Still, the Times failed to acknowledge him.
The exclusion of Paul’s name has sparked outrage among his supporters, who accuse the Times of deliberate media bias. Many believe the paper received directives to suppress any coverage of Ron Paul, and, as a result, failed to provide fair and balanced reporting.
Ron Paul Added After Thompson’s Exit
In an update to the story, the New York Times eventually added Ron Paul’s name to their results page. However, this addition was only made after Fred Thompson dropped out of the race, leaving an empty slot. It became clear that Paul’s inclusion was more of an afterthought than an effort to correct the earlier omission.
Even when compared side-by-side with Rudy Giuliani, the results highlight a clear bias. Paul had outperformed Giuliani in 4 out of 5 primaries, with the only exception being a narrow 9% to 8% loss, nearly a tie. Yet, Giuliani continued to receive prominent coverage, while Paul was left out of the narrative.
Conclusion
The New York Times’ omission of Ron Paul from their Nevada primary coverage is a stark example of media bias and the systemic effort to undermine certain candidates. By failing to report the legitimate results of the race, the Times has called into question its commitment to journalistic integrity. Even though Paul was eventually added to the results page, the damage had already been done, and the Times’ credibility was severely tarnished.
