Has Ron Paul been "shafted" by the mainstream media? Politico columnist Roger Simon certainly thinks so. Noting that "Paul lost [last weekend's Ames Straw Poll] to Bachmann by nine-tenths of one percentage point, or 152 votes out of 16,892 cast," Simon thinks that Paul has not received enough attention from the chattering class. And it is true that Paul's chances have been summarily dismissed; Paul has did not appear on any of the Sunday talk shows following Ames, is never included among lists of top tier contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, and was described by a Monday Wall Street Journal editorial in a parenthetical aside as a candidate "who has no chance to win the nomination."
Roger Simon is not alone in this view. Jon Stewart weighed in on the question during his Monday night show, calling out a variety of FOX News and other pundits for pretending Paul doesn't exist. "How did libertarian Ron Paul," Stewart asked his audience, "become the thirteenth floor in a hotel?"
Yet while the grievance aired by Simon and Stewart is understandable, it is misapplied in this case. The exclusion of Ron Paul from discussions of Republican front-runners is not a sign of the mainstream media's blindness, but rather of their competence in serving, finally, as an adequate filtering mechanism.
If anything, political commentators tend to suffer from the opposite problem, failing to distinguish between campaign noise and nonsense. The emergence of Michele Bachmann as the front-runner in Iowa is a prime example. Bachmann, during her two terms in Congress, has been a clearinghouse for views and positions that under most circumstances would disqualify her as a mainstream presidential candidate. Among the most notorious was her spring 2009 observation that flu outbreaks during Democratic presidential administrations represent an "interesting coincidence." She also has a record of statements about homosexuality that most Americans would find abhorrent, and has questioned the patriotism of Democratic adversaries on multiple occasions. This, combined with a sparse record of actual legislative achievement, should have ensured that she was provided the same coverage due to most vanity candidates. Instead, she was treated as a legitimate contender from the get-go -- and that attention, combined with the self-immolation of Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty, have branded her as a conservative champion.
The media should be applauded for the collective observation that success in the Ames Straw Poll is not an indicator of broad-based support. The Straw Poll is a small enough event to be held inside the Iowa State University basketball arena; The results are far from scientific, and every four years plenty of top-tier candidates (including, this year, Mitt Romney) decline to compete. The event's importance to individual campaigns directly correlates with the expectations set by that candidates. Tim Pawlenty invested heavily and was forced out of the race due to his third place finish, while Romney's seventh place finish elicited only shrugs.
This is to say, the Ames Straw Poll is an event specifically tailored to Paul's strengths. Once the parameters of this year's Staw Poll were established Paul quickly ponied up $31,000 to get the prime location beside the entrance to the polling place, and his campaign funded $20 of the $30 price of tickets for all Ron Paul voters. Most prognostications offered before the event assumed that Paul would finish either first or second.
Though Paul has proven his ability to pack the house, his tally represents a significant bulk of his support and not a small sampling. While Jon Stewart is certainly right in pointing out that Ron Paul laid much of the ideological groundwork the Tea Party currently rests on, Paul himself has never established himself as a viable contender. Speculation about how Ron Paul may impact the presidential race more frequently centers on whether he will run as a third party candidate, rather than on the possibility that he may eventually claim the nomination. The newest Rasmussen poll of the Republican field pegs Paul at nine percent, within one percentage point of where he stood in the last Rasmussen poll and 20 points below the current leader, Rick Perry.
The opportunity cost of devoting more attention to Paul is time not spent attempting to force Mitt Romney to settle on explicit positions, and missed opportunities to interrogate Rick Perry on what, exactly, about the Federal Reserve's current policy amounts to "treason." A sophisticated triage is required in prioritizing coverage of presidential candidates, and reporters and commentators are not incorrect in their evaluation of Ron Paul's chances. In reality, a media that is able to distinguish between Ron Paul and candidates who actually have a chance at becoming the next President of the United States is far preferable to a mainstream press that chases every shiny object that glints their way.
Did Ron Paul's presidential bid just get a big boost from Jon Stewart?
Ron Paul Wears Invisibility Cloak In News Media's Eyes
Ron Paul: New TV Ad Labels Fellow Candidates "Smooth Talking Politicians"
Rasmussen Poll: Rick Perry 29%, Mitt Romney 18%, and Ron Paul 9%
Why is Russian TV Backing Ron Paul?
Ron Paul Campaign Releases Second TV Ad of 2012 Cycle
West: Ron Paul's Position on Nuclear Iran Perilous
Could Christie, Palin, Paul Ryan Still Jump in GOP Race?
Rep. Paul says bipartisanship led to spending spree
Clips From Last Night: Mark Sanford on the tea party; Rep. Ron Paul on Democrats
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Last time I looked that wasn't their job. But since you really don't seem to know what their job is, let me tell you how it is according to my high school Journalism teacher.
First: It's your job to report that crime in the city is going up or down. It's my job to decide if that is good or bad. So while reporting on increased police patrols is pertinent it isn't your job to tell me if it is a factor to be considered or even try to link it to the first story.
Second: Just the facts. Facts, facts, more facts and do be sure they are accurate please. Opinions are for the op-ed pages. For news, we want the facts. The news section should be booooring but factually accurate.
That's it. Just two jobs. Report the news factually and without imposing your own personal viewpoint. So, go ahead. Please waste my time reporting on the platforms of every possible presidential candidate. I will decide who is or isn't worthy of my consideration.
I think the reason for the Ron Paul media blackout is that the mainstream media is getting its marching orders from the power interests that support it through advertising and otherwise. And the message is - shut Ron Paul down, silence his message at all costs. Because the last thing they want is people thinking and educating themselves about such things as the Federal Reserve, monetary policy, fiat currency, privacy, liberty and the Constitution. Keeping those issues out of the political discussion is fundamental to maintaining the command and control mechanisms of big money. Better we debate abortion rights and gay marriage.
Dr. Ron Paul's support springs from the entire political spectrum, not just self-serving interest groups in alignment with the old left-right paradigm. He is by far the most popular choice among armed services personel, his supporters are united by passionate concern with America's future, his message oozes common sense, concretely spelled out policies reflecting intellectual sobriety and honesty, and most of all he clearly is not cut from the same-old slick, professional-politician cloth as the rest of the Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy inpersonator's field. In fact, the man actually possesses modesty, and genuine, well-demonstrated integrity to principle. Mr. Smith, your journalistic insight, commentary and prediction so typical of the establishmentTV talking heads circuit belongs to yesterday.
Your words are proving the point of the wealthy business interests who are in control of said media. They fear Ron Paul because he would remove them from their position of power over the US and its people, thus they try their hardest to sideline him.
There are many things that I disagree with Ron Paul on, but I refuse to maintain the status quo and vote in another president that will bow to corporate interests! Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to change the system entirely! He knows that the wealth of America is built on small business and wants to return economic responsibility to those individuals. Right now, the ultra-rich are gaming the United States government to receive trillions in handouts while the poor are living on food stamps. That won't change unless Ron Paul is elected!
Do you think those rich ----suckers WANT to be toppled from their position of power? They are doing everything they can to make you believe that we don't need Ron Paul, that he doesn't have what it takes, make you believe that he will not win. And they're winning, if you're any indication! As you are, you're just a slave to their propaganda, but you don't have to be. Open your eyes and see who the REAL leaders are, and why they should be gone!
http://youtu.be/6t1u9gSTw3I
Just give Ron Paul his fair shake, and let the American people decide. What is the media afraid of for someone so unelectable anyway?
Many Talking Heads of on-line newspapers have published that the time is ripe for an alternative party.
So, that fact may be the reason the media does not want to add fuel to the grassroots' rage at the Republican Party.
The Mad-As-Hell generation have realized the uselessness of the two-party system that plays chicken, instead of creating jobs. Nov. 2012 Election is the time to bury the Republican Party with the Do Nothing platform for the last two years.
Maybe Ron Paul is not the alternative. But a Party called the Peoples' Mandate is overdue to be born.
Only the voters can put an end to the Republican Party who solely exist to ensure their millionaire status. So obvious that they are existing for their own elite lifestyle. No jobs have been created since the Tea Party gained seats in the House of Representatives.
America, VOTE for a new Party. Throw these self-serving bums out!
I intended this to read ""It's another to deliberately omit his name *while reporting and commenting on the actual results of the caucus on the day of the caucus* but talk about Bachmann, Palin, Perry..."
No, it's not that they are now a high minded filter. It's that Paul does not sling fit into the standard red/blue divisions, and he's not exciting enough. He doesn't make ad hominem attacks or try to divide the country. It's just not good theater.