In the same category

The extraordinary lack of coverage of Ron Paul

IMG Auteur
Published : August 19th, 2011
1713 words - Reading time : 4 - 6 minutes
( 18 votes, 4.7/5 ) , 15 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
Our Newsletter...
FOLLOW : Corn Ron Paul Wind
Category : Editorials





Is Ron Paul Getting the Coverage He Deserves? [NO]
Nick Gillespie | August 17, 2011

Reason staffers Mike Riggs and Katherine Mangu-Ward were on the television yesterday to discuss the media’s response to what might be called "The Riddle of Ron Paul": Why do
major newspapers, broadcast shows, and cable news outlets seem hell-bent on ignoring a 12-term GOP congressman who came in a tight second in the Iowa Straw Poll? Indeed, the results of that hokey quadrennial exercise in corn-dog politics was used to talk up Michelle Bachmann’s legitimacy. Yet, none of that seemed to rub off on Rep. Paul (R-Texas), who seems to be getting the Voldemort treatment from just about everyone with the exception of Jon Stewart.

Hartmann: Ron Paul…He Who Shall Not Be Named;v=T15dvpnwPJo

Politico reports that target="_blank" Ron Paul remains media poison.

Ron Paul remains media poison
By: Roger Simon
August 15, 2011 03:17 PM EDT

I admit I do not fully understand target="_blank" Ron Paul and his beliefs. But I do understand when a guy gets shafted, and
Ron Paul just got shafted.

On Saturday, the Ames Straw Poll was conducted in Iowa amid huge media interest and scrutiny. …

“close” does not fully describe Paul’s second-place finish. Paul lost to Bachmann by nine-tenths of one percentage point, or 152 votes out of 16,892 cast.

If it had been an election, such a result would almost certainly have triggered a recount. It was not an election, however, and that is my point. Straw polls are supposed to tell us, like a straw tossed into the air, which way the wind is blowing.

And any fair assessment of Ames, therefore, would have said the winds of the Republican Party are blowing toward both Bachmann and Paul.

why didn’t Paul get the same credit for his organizational abilities as Bachmann did for hers?

I am far from a Libertarian. I believe big government is swell as long as it does big things to help the common good. But
after Ames, it was as if Paul had been sentenced to the Phantom Zone.

The Moderate Voice reports that target="_blank" the American media is delinquent.

MEDIA: Mainstream-Embracing Disappointingly Ignorant Advocates
Aug 16th, 2011

My first choice for the “A” word in the title was not “Advocates,” but I settled on it because it is more conducive to intelligent discussion than the word I wanted to use.

There is nothing more tiresome than the imputation of intent where none exists [ie: conspiracy]. …

And yet, and yetthe extraordinary lack of coverage of Ron Paul following his statistical tie for first place in Iowa is a remarkable story in itselfworthy of the best efforts of serious investigative journalists.

Here are a couple of headlines that I saw today, a couple of days after the Iowa Straw Poll, which are very typical of the type of coverage the event has generated.

Pawlenty exits GOP race; leaves Romney, Perry, Bachmann to duke it out (CS Monitor)

target="_blank" Bachmann, Perry Shake Up GOP Field (FOX)

Dr. Paul, who everyone knows represents something new and culturally challengingtwo criteria for newsworthinessis conspicuous by his absence.

As another example, in the story, “The post-Ames, post-Pawlenty GOP field“, from CNN, the only reference in the whole article to the man who gained almost as many votes as Bachmann, was the line,

Pawlenty finished a distant third in the poll, behind Bachmann and Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who finished within one percentage point of each other.

The remarkably strong and suggestive showing of Dr. Paul does not, apparently, warrant even the use of his name as the subject of a sentence in an article that purports to describe the post-Pawlenty field. And this is despite the fact that he near-as-damn-it tied with a woman who couldn’t put any clear water between her and him even though the poll was held in her home-state.

THE DERELICTION OF SERVICE BY THE MEDIA IS TRULY REMARKABLE. I don’t know how or why it has come about but it demands investigationas an extraordinary incident of either massive group-think or institutional corruption.

It is hard to believe that
journalists are being instructed from their corporate overlords to misrepresent a hugely important political event and trend, but IT IS ALSO HARD TO CREDIT THE IDEA THAT AN ENTIRE PROFESSION OF THOUSANDS OF FREE-THINKING INDIVIDUALS HAVE DECIDED TO IGNORE THE ELEPHANT (read libertarian doctor), IN THE ROOM especially when it is obvious to anyone with an internet connection or the ability to read that Dr Paul’s success in Iowa is not just a story BUT IS REALLY THE ONLY STORY HERE.

“Standard Republican congresswoman wins in her home state” is not a story.

“Humble peace-loving congressman who has often stood almost alone for 30 years against the greatest changes wrought upon this country in the areas of war and economics, who has been regarded as a marginal character for most of this time, and whose views completely subvert the prevailing Left vs. Right, two-party paradigm of the most powerful country in the world”: that IS a story.

I happen to believe that
if Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, he is likely to beat Obama to the presidency. But the evident failure of the media en masse to cover the Ron Paul phenomenon post-Ames does not depend on my being correct. Even if I am mistaken, what has already been achieved is itself important per se as reflective of a profound shift in the country’s political consciousness, and even identity.

the shift that Dr. Paul represents and was confirmed to be real in Ames SHOULD BE FRONT-PAGE NEWS even if Obama, Bachmann, Romney, or anyone else for that matter, ends up as our next president.

If so-called political journalists were doing their job, they would point out that the Ron Paul revolution phenomenon is all the more newsworthy because IT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED ALMOST ENTIRELY BY GRASSROOTS ACTIVITY: armies of Americans are making endorsement videos, unpaid and unsolicited; designers and artists are making logos, posters and signs; webmasters are setting up websites to promote their candidate; neighborhood organizers are bringing people together; students are setting up campus organizations all over the country to promote the ideas of this one candidate.

many of these people, united in a rising political cause, used to be political opponents — target="_blank" some from the left, others from the rightand are as demographically diverse as any political movement you can find. Now, however, they share a determination to expend their own resources — time and money — out of a simple belief in, and indeed passion for, the message that their candidate espouses. Some of them have been consistently doing it for years and are finally hitting pay dirt.

This is not only extraordinary in American politics. IT IS ALMOST UNIQUE ON A GLOBAL SCALE. What exactly are the media for if not to reflect back to us — let alone help us to understandcurrents of such depth and import in our own nation?

Collectively then, as a national institution, the American media, are delinquent. Forget the old saw of reporters’ presenting the first draft of history: the large corporate media are currently presenting only a lack of intellectual curiosity and integrity.

It is not worthy of a nation with the standing, the history or the spirit of the United States.

In a broader historical perspective, it may turn out that the only story of our times that will be as politically and culturally important to the future of the USA as the ignored rise of Dr. Paul and the liberty movement, is
the story about how a multi-billion dollar media industry that pretends to serve a nation by providing basic, relevant information can continue to avoid doing so.

that latter storywhich should scare people as much as the former story should inspire thembrings me, at last, to my chosen word in the title — “advocates”.

whether intentional or not,
the media as an institution is clearly advocating a status quo in which a tired two-party system dominates a nation BY AGREEING ON MOST THINGS WHILE APPEARING TO OPPOSE EACH OTHER.

It is shameful. It is sad. It is pathetic. If you are a journalist who is freely generating this black-is-white nonsense, then you have no journalistic integrity. If you are peddling this informational snake-oil because you are under pressure to do so within the corporation for which you work, then you have no spine – and what’s more, you have a moral duty to inform your readers or listeners that that is what is going on.

To all Mainstream-Embracing Disappointingly Ignorant Advocates of the status quo, my hope is that America continues along its restorative path to freedom in spite of you.

My reaction: The extraordinary lack of coverage of Ron Paul following his statistical tie for first place in Iowa is incredible.

1) Major newspapers, broadcast shows, and cable news outlets seem hell-bent on ignoring a 12-term GOP congressman who came in a tight second in the Iowa Straw Poll.

2) Any fair assessment of Ames Straw Poll would have said the winds of the Republican Party are blowing toward both Bachmann and Paul.

3) Dr Paul’s success in Iowa is not just a story, but is really the only story here.

4) The shift that Dr. Paul represents which was confirmed to be real in Ames should be front-page news.

5) If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, he is likely to beat Obama to the presidency.

Conclusion: This is another example of what I wrote about in target="_blank" *****The ESF’s Wurlitzer (Propaganda Machine) Is Slowly Dying*****. Controlling the executive branch is absolutely key to continuing the dollar Ponzi scheme. That is why Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy represents a fatal threat which much be stopped, even if it means exposing the fact that bothliberal” and “conservative” media are controlled by the same source. target="_blank" The ESF is wrecking the credibility (and usefulness) of its propaganda machine in its bid to stop the Ron Paul campaign. This desperation is another sign of how near the end is.

Eric de Carbonnel




<< Previous article
Rate : Average note :4.7 (18 votes)
>> Next article
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
Jim C. who said ``Ron Paul mighy make a great economist, not a great President.``I guess I`m willing to have a great economist, and a President as Ron Paul look ahead if he got elected he`d be in perhaps one term and he would give pink slips to almost all of the bureaucrats/autocrats none elected serving for life in government, putting a death nail into organizations like the California Coastal Commission, and such like groups in the country, thus allowing industries to once again be welcomed back into America. To put our people back to work. A person like that wouldn`t be popular, but we need a wake up call in the land of the so-called free.
Rate :   1  0Rating :   1
A group of America's leading statisticians researched the 2004 presidential election and found it to be fraudulent. The press never reported on this story and it remains unknown to most Americans. Here is a link about a prominent Chicago journalist, Robert Koehler, whose articles on the topic were rejected by the Chicago Tribune:

The press would not touch this story - although I have to say I learned about it from an op-ed column in the San Francisco Chronicle, but never again saw anything about it in the mainstream press.

Essentially, given the way pre-election coverage is run, I'd say that all our elections are now, in a way, rigged from the outset. Only those candidates who will cooperate with the oligarchy get media notice.

I love the segments on the Daily Show, in which excerpts from many mainstream tv news shows are spliced together. What these excerpts reveal is that on topic after topic the events of the day are described with exactly the same words and phrases on the evening news by several different networks simultaneously - and this happens on a routine basis. Over and over again, on the very hot issues of the day, mainstream TV journalists from different networks parrot each other on the nightly news using identical soundbites. Identical, precise. How can this be? It is impossible to believe that network journalists would coincidentally choose the exact same words to describe the issues, and do it over and over and over again, day after day after day. And yet they do. Are we to believe that there are no other word choices? It certainly appears that these identical catch phrases and soundbites cannot be anything other than pre-prepared nonsense, perhaps produced by someone in government with the clear intention of molding public perception.

The news coverage that excluded Ron Paul may not have occurred with identical wording - but his absence from their reporting was identical.

Americans are discouraged from drawing such conclusions about our government, but I honestly cannot find any other explanation for this recurring news phenomenon. The usual explanation about media being driven by the desires of advertisers certainly cannot explain it. Something else is clearly at work.

Ruling class writer, Edward Bernays, wrote about the need to mold the public mind:
"In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays informs readers about the true ruling class in our society.

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”

They believe the public is quite stupid and because we believe what they tell us, we constantly confirm their impression, thereby inspiring more deception, more theft, more war, etc.
@Jim C. good questions about health care taxes and states, and Lincoln and slavery/secession. **I can't answer for him or his campaign officially, this is what I interpret his positions or responses to be based on his interviews and writings.**

-- States and health care taxes: The position he or anyone who follows the Constitution would revolve around this... Most Americans are taught and accept there is a strict separation of power in the federal gov't: the executive branch, judicial branch, and legislative branch.

What most of us forget or aren't taught with as much enthusiasm is there is indeed a strict and vital separation of power between the federal government AND state governments. So, his position is the fed has no jurisdiction over health care, but if each individual state through majority vote wants to enact something like it, that is for each state and its citizens to decide and the fed cannot and should not get involved.

If you're concerned about state gov't exerting too much control, one solution is vote in Libertarian candidates at the state and local levels. In any case, there is a strict separation between state and fed gov't that must be respected.

-- Lincoln and slavery/secession: I've liked Lincoln ever since I was young, who wouldn't - growing up poor, becoming president, freeing the slaves... a great American tale. However, after doing a bit of cold research on slavery/Civil War, my views have changed a bit on what he did and how he went about doing it -- similar to how most people's views on Christopher Columbus have changed (many people today agree he did not "discover" America, he accidentally crashed into it...).

With Lincoln and and slavery/secession, many countries around the world had slavery. None of those countries ended slavery with a civil war. They pretty much did it by decree - they just stopped it. America could have done the same thing and saved all those lives and avoided the economic repercussions of the Civil War.

At the time slaves were property (it's a disgusting practice that lasted too long in human history, and unfortunately today there is international human trafficking, which is modern slavery - a topic for another time...)

Many have said one way the Civil War could have been avoided would have been if the federal gov't bought the slaves outright and then immediately set them all free. Something like that would have ended slavery, avoided the bloodbath, and it would have compensated the slave owners and therefore eliminated any talk about secession.

Ron Paul has commented on these scenarios in the past -- the position is slavery could have been ended without the bloodshed and cost of the Civil War, just like it happened in many other countries.
Rate :   0  1Rating :   -1

Libertarians have traditionally believed in limited government, usually limited to the retalitory use of force against domestic criminals and foreign agression. That Paul would not interfer in the violation of individual rights (committed by a State against its inhabitants -- implied use of force to collect heathcare payments) puts him more in the anachist's camp.

Lincoln believed that slavery would slowly disappear and was resigned to the fact -- given the Missouri Comprise of 1820. The South was not and pushed it's repeal by the Kansas-Nebraska of 1854 allowing for the expansion of slavery. Lincoln, in his own words, was "awoken from his dogmatic slumber" and re-entered politics. This issue was the cornerstone of the famous Lincoln/Douglas debates. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott 1857 decision sanctioning the return of escaped slaves to their "masters" further convinced Lincoln that the South was intent on expansion, not containment in a live and let live situation. And he was frightened and incensed that such and expansion would be forcoming. Slavery was not going quietly into that good night as he had hoped.

Sadly, Ron Paul would have supported Dred Scott and not lifted a finger to prevent it's implementation. Paul would have allowed the South to leave the Union, slaves escaping to North thereafter being sent back.

Ron Paul might make a great economist, not a great President.
Rate :   6  -3Rating :   9
I haven't decided on anyone. Election day is over one year away... whom will you vote for? Out of all who are running, which will make the greatest president in this coming election?

I understand your points above, I don't necessarily agree with them on a personal level (neither of us have any indication how the Paul camp would respond).

-- On the Libertarian point - wouldn't you agree that we have too much regulation at the moment, and the knee-jerk reaction for the bureaucrats on all levels, for almost any issue is, "we ought to make a law about it...we ought to create a new department or branch of gov't to deal with it..." Toning down this gut-reaction and establishing clear jurisdictions doesn't equal anarchy.

Do Libertarians agree with the US using force on foreign gov'ts because we don't agree with them on issues? Such as Libya, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan? If the fed forces itself on states, would this not be the same as the US interfering with foreign gov'ts?

-- Your guess that the South would have expanded slavery even further is as good a guess that buying all the slaves and immediately setting them free would have completely avoided the Civil War.

The fact is (unfortunately) slavery is profitable for slave owners. Slave owners - US or foreign - would naturally want to expand slavery, yet most other countries ended slavery without the bloodshed... Why?

That's a discussion better had at the bar over a few beers when concerned individuals can play the "Time Machine Game"...
Ji, - This book might help you to disassemble your gate keeper mind set. Best of luck to you, my friend.
Rate :   1  0Rating :   1
This is amazing. All these responses in favor of Paul and NO ONE has addressed the issue of his comment in the debate: that, if President, he would NOT interfer with States coercing health care taxes from private citizens. This from a lover of individual liberty? Given that stance, what else would he not interfer with? Had he been President instead of Lincoln he would have allowed the South to leave the Union or made no attempt to prevent free states from going slave. I have put the question to his campaign headquarters several times and have yet to have a response. Talk about being snubbed.

Paul is a deeply flawed candidate who, despite some of his Libertarian views, is decidely anti-individual when push comes to shove.
Rate :   6  -3Rating :   9
Even if you don't plan on voting for Ron Paul or agree with him... any sane minded American should be concerned about how he is being treated. It should send a chill down your back.

Is the US "nation-building" against Americans?
-- The US picks the contenders in other countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
-- The US influences the races in these countries.
-- The US influences the media in these countries.
-- Is this being done to Americans... on US soil?

Also, authoritarian countries routinely bury the news to fit the leadership's agenda. We criticize when these countries do so... but:

Isn't our media guilty of burying the news in regards to Ron Paul? He has a clearly distinctive message that based on polls and public opinion is today THE mainstream opinion (less war, less debt, less invasion of privacy, less fed, less being told what to do...).

It doesn't matter if you don't plan to vote for Ron Paul... The bigger issue for sane, liberty-minded, and free-thinking Americans is that you are being forced to follow the status quo (the complete opposite of the mainstream public opinion), a status quo that does not support your interests, nor does it benefit you.

That is the true story, that's the "scoop", that's the big idea - but media, by ignoring Ron Paul's campaign, is in fact belittling the point of view, desires, and concerns of the American people and ignoring the sound ideas for solving many of America's problems today.
Rate :   2  1Rating :   1
For at least 10 years, I have been concerned by the levels of fraud that we are observing in the USA. I am a native American who has cast votes in every election since I was legally permitted to exercise that right. I believe that Ron Paul will be ignored until the proper story about his lack of foreign policy leadership can be repeated machine style throughout our media. They need to know through testing and survey that the message will work against him. Once that message is set, we will hear about Rep. Paul as the candidate with the most "inane and naive foreign policy views". Yet, if you listen to his views you quickly understand that he believes that Congress ought to consider whether or not the US Military should be deployed. Declare War, the way our founding fathers designed the federal govt. to do, or stay out of these wasteful engagements that are costing more than we would vote to pay if we had the facts. Rep. Ron Paul knows that we have created debts that can't be paid. He knows where the real waste is being created. Wake up and pay attention to what has happened since we entered our unauthorized military positions in the Orient, Middle East and Europe. We are paying more for gas, food, property taxes and our dollars are losing value. The system needs to be overhauled. Why is it that human being who are intelligent and can see where the country is headed do nothing to turn the course towards a better result? Take a chance on Ron Paul. He cannot do any worse than Obama, Bush, Clinton have done. He is among the few elected representatives who care enough to explain to the average citizen what the budget, debt and spending cuts actually mean. How many of the other candidates said simply to the media that the cuts are only being made where we project to spend in the future. Right now, there are no cuts. We have the right to elect our government. If only to shake up the wealthy political machines, vote against the folks who are being presented by the media. Ron Paul knows more about our troubles and how to "heal" this country than any other candidate. This is not a sports match. We are voting to elect men and women who understand that the government was established to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Who cares about whether our military sits in other countries to intimidate them? It costs too much and we suffer enormous price increases instead of realizing any beneficial results. If the Congress had to vote and Declare War, would we be engaged in any of our current deployments? Time to change the representation we have as it is only concerned about its own power and interests and cares nothing for what is being left for our posterity. Ron Paul will have my vote in the Primary and the General if his name appears on the ballot.
Rate :   3  0Rating :   3
Ron Paul isnt remotely naive, he knows the system inside out and what is needed to change America for the better before its too late. All the other candidates have or will sell their souls to the MSM devil. Its time for America to bring home the troops and look after its own people the rest of the world will just have to cope without US meddling. Israel has more than enough firepower to deal with its neighbours so quit worrying about them!
Rate :   3  0Rating :   3
I`m going to vote for Ron Paul for President the GOP wants same as usual more george w bush type material in the White House. Ron Paul would destroy the status quo, a break(like at a pool table, balls going everywhere) the Dems & Republicans hate a spoiler. Dr. Ron Paul knows how to fix the capital problem, as far as foreign policy questions he`d have a staffer on board. Like Prez Clinton before he had smart people around him to advise him. As far as Israel they know how to bomb their enemies, with our blessing. The Arabs seem to know how to blow things up with themselves chances are they will succeed, when they get the bomb they will test it, and oop`s they will probably from a distant land see it works, Iran`s capital will probably go up in smoke.
Eric...I would have entitled it, "The Extra-ordinarily Desperate Lack of Coverage of Ron Paul"...thanks for the article.

Those of us who know what Dr Paul is and has been talking about for decades now and are neither (or at least "no longer") brainwashed by the spin and propaganda, oh heck, the outright lies, spewed out by the MSM, nor have some personal agenda / bias outside of wanting to see this country drawn back from the brink of total transformation into a fascist, military-industrial, elitist banana "republic" police state can use (and have already used) this blatant abuse of and by the MSM and this desperate attempt to ignore the un-ignorable as a further resource for the purpose of pulling back the curtain and revealing what kind of arrogant megalomaniacal elitist scum exist behind it that not only considers itself the sole determiner of what the sheeple will see, hear, and believe, but has through its lies destroyed many Americans' ability to prepare (or even recognize the very need to be prepared) for the financial Armageddon that is surely to come to this country unless perhaps, God have mercy on us, Ron Paul could actually gain the presidency. That could happen ONLY if enough of the sheeple people awake from their stupor (partially created by the MSM) and finally understand what Dr Paul has been saying and warning them about for so long, and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!

Keep up the good work...jt
As I mention in a response to another article this 'snubbing' of Ron Paul, probably true to some extent, may be more a reaction to his inane and naive foreign policy views than his encomic accumen or perceived threat to the status quo. In the recent debate his let out two whoppers: that he would allow the States to coerce their citizens into paying for health care, and that he could care less if Iran had nukes.

Forcusing on Iran, Paul brushed away Iran's many vocalizations that they will destroy Israel...and the United States (still the Great Satan). Paul also questioned Iran's ability to deliver a nuke without a missile system, overlooking their continued testing of missles and the ability to set off dirty bombs without such a system.

And months earlier, Paul had said that Obama should have consulted with Pakistan before going after Bin Laden...the most naive comment I've ever heard a serious politician make!

In fact, better for Paul to be snubbed than for these views to be widely spead by the media.
Rate :   6  -3Rating :   9
Dear Jim C.
Time to stop drinking "the KoolAid" buddy.
Since when can an almost seamless media black-out be quantified as "to some extent" ?

Per nukes - please keep in mind how many Nukes have been distributed by Uncle $cam ?

Per Iran - obviously you are swimming in all the KoolAid your U$$A MSM media is providing.
The only country on the planet with "dirty bombs" is AmeriKKKa, AND,,, ameriDUH? has the most nukes of all other nations combined - so what is your real point ???

Per Bin Laden - he had nothing to do with 911, a self inflicted false-flage by your own government, presumably co-opted by your ameriKKKan banksters in chorus with U$ MIC.
As an aside - bin Laden has been DEAD since late 2001 / early 2002 - so WAKE UP IDIOT !
The navy seals raid was a sham - MIS-DIRECTION for mindless minions - LIKE YOU !!

Turn off your TV and pull your head from your A$$ - unless you enjoy being a FOOL !!

Peter Carson

Rate :   3  0Rating :   3

Nice intellectual argument. I don't think Paul would be proud of your support despite what I think of him.

Rate :   6  -3Rating :   9
Latest comment posted for this article
Jim C. who said ``Ron Paul mighy make a great economist, not a great President.``I guess I`m willing to have a great economist, and a President as Ron Paul look ahead if he got elected he`d be in perhaps one term and he would give pink slips to almost al  Read more
Invention - 8/21/2011 at 1:33 PM GMT
Rating :  1  0
Top articles
World PM Newsflow