It's absolutely startling how the media is, once again, attempting to marginalize Ron Paul, despite his growing popularity and success in the most recent straw poll. This is not at all a surprise. The political establishment despises him and his ideas, so they're doing what they can to frame the debate in a way that will not favor him.

8/14/2011 4:27:20 PM

It's not really that startling. He's not very controversial. He's not very charismatic. And he's not going to win. It makes perfect sense that the media doesn't give a fuck about him as much as the others. The media is really pretty simple and easy to understand.

[Edited on August 14, 2011 at 4:59 PM. Reason : x]

8/14/2011 4:58:58 PM

He's not very controversial? Most of his positions are in direct contrast to the mainstream.

The media should not be in the business of deciding who is and isn't going to win. Shit like this: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/0814/Pawlenty-exits-GOP-race-leaves-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-to-duke-it-out

"Pawlenty exits GOP race; leaves Romney, Perry, Bachmann to duke it out"

Hilariously, the mainstream/progressive left will rail against war, corporate handouts, the drug wars...all while supporting the guy that has escalated ALL that shit, and trying their best to marginalize the only guy willing to take a stand against it. Get a grip, already. Either get behind the only honest guy up there or we risk getting a lunatic like Perry or Bachmann.

[Edited on August 14, 2011 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ]

8/14/2011 5:17:37 PM

hes not a story. they want someone to win that they can rail about for the next 4 years.

they can draw infinite comparisons between perry and bush- even if the most creative thing their peabrains can come up with is "oh my, another texan redneck."

bachmann, a crazyass woman that they can absolutely crucify on a daily basis. a vagina, religion, migraines, hate, you name it. they would love for her to win (dont get them wrong).

romney, they can ridicule his religion and complain that hes so rich, etc.

they got nothing for paul. he isnt a story. they cant make money off talking about him. hes boring and unprofitable as far as theyre concerned.

thats really how shallow that puddle known as the media is.

[Edited on August 14, 2011 at 5:50 PM. Reason : ...]

8/14/2011 5:48:50 PM

^That's not really the media's fault, they give people what the people want. I don't think you can blame the media for Ron Paul being uninteresting, I think the fault for that would fall on Paul himself.

8/14/2011 6:08:22 PM

yep, and by the same token, i've gotten partially past being pissed at politicians for sucking so much. They're pretty much doing what their dumbass constituents ask them to.

8/14/2011 6:25:03 PM

Elections should not be a popularity competition or who is more interesting. It should be about who is the best for the job. The media prevents us from having free elections in this country. Its really a shame.

8/14/2011 6:26:11 PM

Quote :

"He's not very controversial? Most of his positions are in direct contrast to the mainstream."

What I mean is that he's got no drama. He's got no kid knocked up at 17, he's not an idiot who says things for shock drama, he's not a black guy, etc, etc... but I think you knew that.

8/14/2011 6:26:48 PM

Quote :

"Elections should not be a popularity competition or who is more interesting. It should be about who is the best for the job. The media prevents us from having free elections in this country. Its really a shame."

srsly?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

8/14/2011 6:40:03 PM

Quote :

"What I mean is that he's got no drama. He's got no kid knocked up at 17, he's not an idiot who says things for shock drama, he's not a black guy, etc, etc... but I think you knew that."

He's possibly a racist and a homophobe, but I'll give you he doesn't have a whole lot of "scandal" with him.

8/14/2011 7:14:39 PM

Quote :

"He's possibly a racist and a homophobe"

You mean he's a republican?

8/14/2011 7:43:08 PM

just read a good article on Ron Paul. I think he is starting to gain popularity and credibility. people are starting to wonder why mainstream media is ignoring him.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/08/will-no-one-rid-gop-troublesome-congressman

8/15/2011 12:19:51 PM

Poor Ron Paul, marginalized by the mainstream media.....

8/15/2011 12:25:52 PM

When Fox News is working overtime to suppress information about Ron Paul, and you support their efforts, what does that tell you?

[Edited on August 15, 2011 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ]

8/15/2011 3:54:04 PM

^Hard to argue with that. How the hell could you consider Perry one of the leading candidates when he just got in?

I say Ron Paul is fucked without support from Fox (which he obviously doesn't have). What, do you think tea party republicans can read or something?

8/15/2011 5:39:02 PM

It tells me that either

A)Ron Paul needs to become interesting/relevant enough for the media to want to report on.

B)You need to create a media outlet and report on the candidates you think a relevant.

C)We should abolish private media and only have state-run media showing exactly the same coverage for all candidates.

Either way, whining about unfair media coverage sounds like sour grapes from the irrelevant. Run Paul's grandchildren/supporters should probably stfu if they really want people to think he's a legitimate possibility for President.

8/15/2011 5:40:15 PM

i think the fact that both liberal and conservative media outlets are giving Ron Paul the shaft should be a wake up call to a lot of american's....but will it be? doubt it unfortunately.

8/15/2011 5:41:37 PM

Quote :

"When Fox News is working overtime to suppress information about Ron Paul, and you support their efforts, what does that tell you?"

It tells me you need to stop your bitching and vote with your wallet. Fox news is a free market enterprise, if they're making money by not reporting on Ron Paul, why should anyone have a problem with that?

8/15/2011 5:50:59 PM

Quote :

"I say Ron Paul is fucked without support from Fox (which he obviously doesn't have). What, do you think tea party republicans can read or something?"

I hope that he isn't fucked without support from Fox News, but it certainly seems like that. When they have him on, they're generally pretty respectful, but clearly there are orders from the top to marginalize him. Fox News has been beating the drums of war for well over a decade.

Quote :

"Ron Paul needs to become interesting/relevant enough for the media to want to report on."

I think what he talks about is very interesting, but I'm also paying closer attention than most.

Quote :

"You need to create a media outlet and report on the candidates you think a relevant."

Dude...really? This is what you came up with?

Quote :

"We should abolish private media and only have state-run media showing exactly the same coverage for all candidates."

LOL

I get it, man. You don't like Ron Paul. That was a really poor quality post, though, compared to what I'm used to seeing out of you.

^Clearly, it is. When both CNN and Fox News agree to a media blackout, you know there's a major threat looming for the establishment

Quote :

"It tells me you need to stop your bitching and vote with your wallet. Fox news is a free market enterprise, if they're making money by not reporting on Ron Paul, why should anyone have a problem with that?"

I have a problem with it because many Americans get 100% of their information from cable TV, and Fox News has effectively cornered the market on so-called "conservatives."

[Edited on August 15, 2011 at 6:01 PM. Reason : ]

8/15/2011 5:56:53 PM

Quote :

"I have a problem with it because many Americans get 100% of their information from cable TV, and Fox News has effectively cornered the market on so-called "conservatives.""

Why do you care, they are a free market business and they are doing what it takes to make money, why do you think you should have any say in what they play?

8/15/2011 6:15:40 PM

You're a stooge. Fox News is allowed to do what they do. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. The fact that you've conflated belief in free market capitalism with a belief that literally anything that turns a profit is good for society is yet another example of how you've failed to understand my philosophy.

8/15/2011 6:25:24 PM

well what are you whining about then?

8/15/2011 7:08:17 PM

Actually I apologize, I am being a bit unfair and mean. It is upsetting how Ron Paul is being actively subverted by the conservative media powers. I, along with most liberals, dislike Fox New's obvious political agenda, and it is hypocritical of me for me to take this kind of enemy of my enemy approach, although much of it is in jest. I think if he would have toned things down on some of his less important issues and focused on the ones most important to him he might not have as much of his party against him. However if he did this people like you would most likely immediately turn on him as extremists tend to be the most fickle of supporters. It's quite a shame he did not simply focused on getting out of wars, balancing the budget, and maybe simplifying the tax code. I think more radical things like returning to the gold standard, getting rid of the federal reserve and such have turned many conservatives strongly against him.

8/15/2011 11:24:52 PM

If you think returning to the gold standard is "radical" then that alone is enough to label you as a liberal extremist


Knock off the pseudo intellectual facade. Get the net.

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 12:06 AM. Reason : a]

8/16/2011 12:04:45 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO93P6uz9t8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
John Stewart calls out the main stream media for ignoring Ron Paul...hilarious

8/16/2011 2:06:39 AM

^if I had to vote in the GOP primary, I'd vote for Paul

8/16/2011 2:11:18 AM

Quote :

"I have a problem with it because many Americans get 100% of their information from cable TV, and Fox News has effectively cornered the market on so-called "conservatives.""

Is your problem with Fox News, then? I could understand being upset with CNN for ignoring him, but since Fox News has never hidden their agenda, I don't see how you could be upset with them for ignoring someone who doesn't fall in line with their mission. I mean, they're in business to make a buck off of the majority of popular conservative opinion. Unfortunately, for you and other Paul supporters, most voting conservatives dislike Paul because he's not "conservative" enough. He's too independent. He doesn't repeat the same conservative talking points. He doesn't march in lock-step with current conservative opinion. He doesn't blindly support wars. He doesn't rouse any rabble about terrorists or marxists (not that I know of, but I'll admit that I don't really follow him aside from the occasional NPR interview).

The problem isn't with Fox News, the problem is with the narrow scope of talking points that conservatives intellectually limit themselves to. Conservatives fear Paul because he doesn't follow the company line. Conservatives want a simple, god-fearing Christian in the White House. One who will overturn Roe vs Wade and shoot illegal immigrants for sport. One who will make English the official language and make it illegal to build mosques in NY.

Paul did himself a disservice by aligning himself up with Republicans in the first place.

8/16/2011 4:39:22 AM

Quote :

""How did libertarian Ron Paul become the 13th floor in a hotel?""

8/16/2011 9:06:29 AM

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM. Reason : v]

8/16/2011 9:12:58 AM

The recent ads are very well done. Seems like the campaign is stepping their game up this year.

http://youtu.be/pChzOaIeyxY

8/16/2011 9:42:19 AM

The one? Sounds a little bit messianistic to me.

8/16/2011 9:46:04 AM

My take: are private cable news organizations obligated to report every single story in existence with equal amount of emphasis? If not, then who is anyone to bitch that they weren't covered?

There is plenty of information on all candidates freely available. A particular cable news station (or set of cable new stations) choose not to cover a particular topic isn't something that should change. But having your grandkids complain about it looks pathetic.

8/16/2011 11:27:47 AM

Quote :

"Conservatives Republicans fear Paul because he doesn't follow the company line"

Fixed it for ya

8/16/2011 11:29:07 AM

Quote :

"My take: are private cable news organizations obligated to report every single story in existence with equal amount of emphasis? If not, then who is anyone to bitch that they weren't covered?"

When you start making the same arguments as Kris...

No one is talking about obligation. Fox News can report on whatever they please. That says nothing about how correct their practices actually are.

8/16/2011 11:40:15 AM

What are their ratings relative to their competitors? What are advertising revenues relative to their competitors? Those are really the only type of things that really matter. Their "correctness" is based solely on that. You can't possibly be idealistic to the point you still think the media should serve as a watchdog and/or a source of unbiased information..

Can't really blame them for wanting to make a buck off the average American citizen's stupidity...

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 12:44 PM. Reason : x]

8/16/2011 12:42:47 PM

Yes, I can blame them. Real people actually experience horrible, grisly deaths because Americans are too lazy/selfish to think about what their government is doing. When you're in the business of spreading lies and keeping people lazy, you're doing a bad thing.

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ]

8/16/2011 12:50:28 PM

In NC if you register unaffiliated (Independent) you can vote in the GOP primary despite not being a Republican.

8/16/2011 12:51:02 PM

when is the NC GOP primary? I actually just changed my voter registration so I can vote in it.

8/16/2011 1:01:13 PM

It's kind of funny watching a free-market Libertarian get upset at a news corporation that's designed to make money first, and report second. You're a c-hair away from suggesting that there be some sort of oversight to regulate their harmful business model, yet you openly oppose things like the FDA in the name of Liberty.


If there were a demand for fair-and-balanced news reporting, someone in the free-market would step up and deliver. Amirite?


You keep saying "they can do as they please" but then you complain about it within the same breath. Either stop complaining, or admit that your principled Libertarian views lend themselves to manipulation and abuse. I would love it, if for just one minute, you realized that your philosophy is not a catch-all solution for governing. If you would just tone-down your "we gotta blow it up and start over with Libertarianism" rantings that you insist on displaying post after post, you wouldn't be such a boring, one-dimensional blogger.

8/16/2011 3:19:20 PM

Let's see - federal government controls the airwaves and creates barriers to entry, in many cases working directly with media outlets to censor and control the dispersal of information. The result is that a few corporations own virtually all media, with the exception of the Internet that is quickly changing things. And, after all that, I'm not allowed to complain? How you not heard of the fucking FCC?

Get real. I want the government involved less, but to chalk Fox News up to "the free market at work" is just as stupid as saying that healthcare/education is a free market. Completely absurd.

What is disturbing is that it seems you guys actually want government controlled media. How dumb can you be?

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM. Reason : ]

8/16/2011 3:40:42 PM

Why are you comparing free market economics with an extremely biased news network?

An argument can be made in both directions... For example, the media is manipulating it's portrayal of information to influence the elections. This isn't allowing a free market system, as the network is distorting information. In other words, there is not a free flow of information.

But, I digress. The two things are apples and oranges.

The point is the media is blatantly doing a shitty job of providing unbiased and transparent information. Unfortunately, It's working...

I believe if Ron received media support comparable to Romney, Perry or Bachmann he would win the nomination.

8/16/2011 3:43:41 PM

We don't want government run media. It's just that the only way to guarantee that the media would cover Ron Paul would be to have state-run media, which you'd definitely be against. What this boils down to is you're fine with the media coverage in principle but you're going to piss and moan because your horse isn't getting the coverage you think he should.

Quote :

"I believe if Ron received media support comparable to Romney, Perry or Bachmann he would win the nomination."

Honestly? The reason they don't run his coverage is because they're pandering to the very evangelicals that won't vote for him in the primaries. Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul. One of these things is not like the other....

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 3:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2011 3:44:09 PM

Yes, I how heard of the FCC. Are you seriously going to blame the FCC for the lack of Ron Paul coverage? Well played sir, well played.


Or maybe I'm missing something here. Has Ron Paul been swearing like a sailor during his speeches whilst showing too much tit?

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 3:50 PM. Reason : ]

8/16/2011 3:47:23 PM

Quote :

"The result is that a few corporations own virtually all media"

I've gotta say, those same moguls would put out a decent news station if they thought it was the best approach for making dollars.

I'm a strong believer in free markets. I'm also enough of a pragmatist to recognize that there are some things that you don't want decided strictly by dollars and cents. I'm not saying that we need gov intervention into cable news--I'm just saying, even from the perspective of essentially a fellow libertarian, that the philosophy of free markets has its limits. Not that markets don't work--just that sometimes what we really want and what they will deliver aren't exactly the same thing. Libertarians (both formally capital-"L" types as well as many of the little-"L" types) are too often guilty of being ideologues, and that's not an insignificant part of why we collectively are a footnote in American politics in 2011.

Quote :

"The point is the media is blatantly doing a shitty job of providing unbiased and transparent information. Unfortunately, It's working... "

True, but the consequence is more about Paul (and Johnson, for that matter) not having the opportunity to shape debate. Actually winning has never really been a realistic outcome.

Quote :

"I believe if Ron received media support comparable to Romney, Perry or Bachmann he would win the nomination. "

Haha, get the fuck outta here.

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ]

8/16/2011 3:50:34 PM

Quote :

"We don't want government run media. It's just that the only way to guarantee that the media would cover Ron Paul would be to have state-run media, which you'd definitely be against. What this boils down to is you're fine with the media coverage in principle but you're going to piss and moan because your horse isn't getting the coverage you think he should."

Hahaha. If we had state-run media, you can guarantee that Ron Paul would never be mentioned in anything but a negative context.

Ron Paul is getting plenty of coverage by smaller, independent sources. Liberal torch bearer (sorry I couldn't come up with a better phrase for this) Jon Stewart railed against MSM for ignoring Ron Paul. It's specifically these huge, entertainment-based cable news outlets that are not mentioning him. Yes, I'm going to complain when the candidate I support gets ignored.

Quote :

"Honestly? The reason they don't run his coverage is because they're pandering to the very evangelicals that won't vote for him in the primaries. Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul. One of these things is not like the other...."

That's not true. Many evelangicals will support Ron Paul because they understand that he's a true conservative, not a neo-conservative. It's possible to have "traditional values" without wanting to force those values on all people at the federal level. Christians should also be opposed to war and usury, so I think they're coming around.

Quote :

"Yes, I how heard of the FCC. Are you seriously going to blame the FCC for the lack of Ron Paul coverage? Well played sir, well played."

I blame the FCC for a lot more than that. Pretty much anyone here is willing to admit that Fox News is garbage, but when it comes to Ron Paul, you come to their defense. the FCC determines what frequencies can be used, who can use them, how they're regulated - all of these things create barriers to entry. The huge media corporations can deal with the regulations. The smaller companies can't.

Quote :

"I've gotta say, those same moguls would put out a decent news station if they thought it was the best approach for making dollars."

Therein lies the problem. A large population dumbed down by the same media they're informed by on a daily basis. Now what?

8/16/2011 3:56:32 PM

I'm not defending Fox News in the slightest. I'm just enjoying the irony of you throwing a hissy-fit when free-market news outlets are ignoring your guy, who just so happens to be a free-market Libertarian.

And watching you try to pin this on the FCC is just delightful. You claim in one sentence that Paul is getting "plenty of coverage by smaller, independent sources" even though you also claim that only the big companies can "deal with the regulations." While the "smaller companies can't." This flat-out doesn't even make sense, unless you expect me to entertain a larger conspiracy to drown-out the voices of Libertarians, which I'm not gonna do.

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 4:12 PM. Reason : ]

8/16/2011 4:11:54 PM

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/08/jon-stewart-ron-paul/41311/

Paul isn't going to win, or come anywhere close. But I'm going to vote and campaign for him, and this is pretty funny.

8/16/2011 4:14:48 PM

Quote :

"This argument in form is illogical, but frequently used to support a number of arguments, here are some examples: We're not sure if there's a god, so let's just assume there is so we don't go to hell. We're not sure if a fetus is really a child, so in order to avoid murdering someone, let's just assume it is and not allow abortion."

only, that's not what the person was saying. DOH!

Quote :

"His hard-line isolationist foreign policy stances are one of the bigger things that distance me from Ron Paul. "

It's not "isolationist" to say "we should quit bombing every country with brown people in it and mind our own fucking business".

Quote :

"I don't think you can blame the media for Ron Paul being uninteresting, I think the fault for that would fall on Paul himself."

So, Paul should go out and be batshit insane like Bachmann or be two-faced like Romney and then he will be more electable? Wat?

Quote :

"What I mean is that he's got no drama. He's got no kid knocked up at 17, he's not an idiot who says things for shock drama, he's not a black guy, etc, etc... but I think you knew that."

Exactly. He's a guy who makes fucking sense, an that is exactly why the media DOESN'T want him around.

Quote :

"Elections should not be a popularity competition "

But I know what you meant, lol.

Quote :

"He's possibly a racist and a homophobe"

Nothing about Ron Paul is racist, unless you think "treating people equally" is "racist".

Quote :

"The recent ads are very well done."

I really would like to see some of these ads. Is he only putting them on Youtube?

8/16/2011 4:37:07 PM

Quote :

"Paul isn't going to win, or come anywhere close. But I'm going to vote and campaign for him, and this is pretty funny."

this mentality has got to change. obviously Ron Paul is getting more attention lately. have you seen this...



http://theswash.com/2011/08/12/breaking-fox-news-ignores-and-pulls-post-debate-poll-that-ron-paul-wins/

8/16/2011 4:45:59 PM

Quote :

"this mentality has got to change. obviously Ron Paul is getting more attention lately. have you seen this..."

It was an internet poll. Ron Paul supporters are infinitely more motivated and active than others. They should have learned their lesson from the '08 campaign, and realized that any poll on the internet will be won by Paul. Setting it up in the first place only shows that they haven't learned anything.

Paul's real poll numbers are surprisingly high this year, compared to '08. He's regularly in the range of 7-12%, and that's better than he was near the end of the campaigns last time. It's better than I thought he'd be doing. I'm very pleased with that.

But he will not win. None of that changes how much I'll campaign for him. When I'm making calls or knocking on doors, I won't tell people I think he has no shot. I simply try to persuade folks that he is the right guy for the job, and he deserves their vote.

Yes, Paul is ignored and persecuted. Some of his idiosyncrasies give his opposition plenty of ammunition. And heaven knows that plenty of his most ardent supporters are just plain....special.

I make calls and knock on doors so that, a couple years or decades down the line, we might have a real impact and have real numbers behind us. But I'm not deluded enough to believe that this is the year. I roll my eyes and feel a little embarrassed whenever my fellow supporters try to deny that. There is little that is more pathetic than a midget who thinks he's 10 feet tall.

I'm hoping to make sure that he is not a flash in the pan (in the public's mind, anyway), and that he's not one of a kind.

Edit:

Interesting factoid from Ames: Ron Paul partially subsidized 4000 tickets (paying $20 of the $30 cost for each), while Bachmann bought 6000 tickets outright.

Paul got 15% more votes than the tickets he subsidized. Bachmann got 20% fewer than she fully paid for.

Edit #2: The only hope Paul has is an extremely diluted field, to the point where 15-20% of the vote could win him IA or NH. With Bachmann, Romney, Perry, perhaps Palin, and some scattered votes for the others, it registers as 'remotely possible' (winning a state, that is). But it's still not going to happen overall. The entire establishment would get behind any one person, no matter who, just to keep him out if that were the case.



[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 5:07 PM. Reason : s]

8/16/2011 4:56:07 PM