La CNBC ha dovuto tirare giù i poll in cui compariva Ron Paul perchè venivano presi d'assalto e le votazioni erano sproporzionatamente a suo favore. L'editore (Allen Wastler) lo spiega qui http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762
cercando di essere diplomatico.
Un blogger (Szandor Blestman) gli risponde per le rime:http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=40170
Now, let me return the compliment, but I will be a little more forward about it. You, sir, are also good. You are good at minimizing the significance of an event. You are good at taking facts and spinning them into something they are not. If you were an alchemist of old, you may have been able to take lead and turn it to gold. You compliment the “Ron Paul faithful,” calling them good, recognizing that they are well organized and feel strongly about their candidate on the one hand, and then you chastise them for expressing their strong feelings in a fair and significant way on the other. As far as I know, everyone had equal access to your poll and anyone with access to a computer could have voted on it. Am I wrong? Was there some flaw with the poll that somehow caused the followers of other candidates to not be able to vote? Were the Huckabee faithful somehow denied access? How about the Giuliani gang? McCain’s crowd? If I had felt Thompson stood out from the rest of the candidates, would I have been somehow forbidden from voting for him? If this is the case the fault is yours and not that of the “Ron Paul faithful.”
EDIT: Un'altro articolo sul sondaggio
della CNBC in cui Ron Paul stravince nonostante i media mainstream facciano di tutto per limitare il tempo a lui dedicato e concederlo invece a Giuliani:http://infowars.net/articles/october2007/111007Paul.htm