ABC Exiles Ron Paul Interview to Web

The following piece was produced by HuffPost's OffTheBus.

Congressman Ron Paul and 20/20 host John Stossel have more than a few things in common. Specifically, they both think a lot of libertarian thoughts, and unlike a lot of libertarians, they've both learned to communicate these thoughts so effectively that they have earned the respect of their peers.

Paul, in his tenth Congressional term, is known as "Dr. No" for his refusal to vote for bills that cater to special interests, raise taxes, or violate his literal interpretation of the Constitution. Stossel, the Emmy-winning consumer reporter who discovered free-market theory via Reason magazine, has been permitted to air provocative specials such as "Stupid in America," which criticized the government's monopoly in education.

So what happens when the champion of freedom and free markets from the U.S. Congress sits down for a chat with his counterpart from the mainstream media? That's when we learn that freedom is simply too hot for TV, or at least, too hot for ABC.

That's right, they are only airing this interview on the internet, in pieces. And the justification is a laugh, at best.

Stossel explained, presumably writing with a gun to his head, in the first article posted Dec. 7:

Despite relatively low poll numbers, Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That's in part because he's raised a ton of money, and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It's one reason we're posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active. In fact, he's the most Googled presidential candidate.

I'm pretty sure I heard a wink in there somewhere...

This really provides a nice illustration of how the controlled media operates, because it really isn't all about the ratings. This interview, in which Paul articulates his controversial views on drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, health care, foreign policy, and the proper role of government in society, would have received terrific ratings. What's more, it would have served the public interest by giving viewers a clearer view of this once-unknown candidate's proposals. And whether his ideas are good or bad, shouldn't they at least be understood prior to dismissal?

When a long-ignored philosophy begins gaining currency in in the marketplace of ideas, it's the role of free media to explore those ideas, explain them, and evaluate them on their merits. Unfortunately, the authors of the First Amendment did not anticipate the media conglomerates of today and the control they would exert over discourse. They also failed to anticipate that millions of federal dollars a year would someday be spent on propagandistic advertising in major media, and (for example) they did not anticipate that the federal government would strong-arm the television industry into including politicized drug messages in their shows (as in the CSI episode where the well-liked Dr. Robbins makes some absurd statements against medical marijuana). But for whatever reason, the polls clearly show that citizens are fed up with government in general, and it's easy to see why Paul gets his support from disaffected voters from across the political and apolitical spectra. The one thing most have in common is that they looked to the internet for answers.

Everybody knows that Paul's popularity is strongly linked to the Internet, but why is that the case? Could it be that for the first time since before William Randolph Hearst, who used his newspaper empire to whip America into a frenzy over marijuana, a free medium has emerged in which ideas can compete on a much more level playing field? And could at least some of those ideas be winning?

If ABC claims to be operating in the public interest, on what grounds can it reasonably suppress this unusually thought-provoking interview?

ABC has been accused of dishonestly downplaying Paul's candidacy before. For example, this YouTube video shows quite an assemblage of Ron Paul supporters holding signs and chanting outside the August 6 GOP debate in Iowa. The video is followed by screen captures of the two still photos ABC included in their section "Photos: Iowa GOP Debate Recap." One shows a close-up of a few Romney supporters holding signs and cheering, suggesting passion and strength of support for the candidate. The other shows a lone Ron Paul supporter smiling and holding an umbrella, suggesting he is all alone and probably a nut.

But this time it's obvious and conclusive. ABC does not want its viewers to learn about Ron Paul. What the hell are they afraid of, a Ron Paul presidency?

Comments

[JBuddha]

Screw the lying media. I run the Denver Metro Ron Paul group and I can tell you for a fact that we are light years ahead of the other GOP candidates. We outnumber all the other candidates combined at all the straw polls. We went to a young republicans meeting and 75% of the people there were Ron Paul people. Giuliani came here and was heckled and had only about 10 supporters who he probably paid to come. Ron Paul has more volunteers than all the other candidates combined, and he has more money now too. It's not even close and the msm is quickly losing credibility.

[Twocentsworth245]

If folks AREN'T afraid of a Ron Paul presidency, they SHOULD be, although I don't think a Ron Paul presidency would be QUITE as frightening as this current administration is. ALMOST, but not QUITE. Thank goodness a Ron Paul presidency is one we won't be getting!

They had a piece on Paul and his "Paulies" (my name for 'em) on PBS's "NOW," and after watching that, I learned all I needed -- and WANTED -- to know about "Dr. No"! For ME, he's Dr. NO WAY! Going from Bushy Boy to Ron Paul would be going from one extreme to the other.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

CNN South Carolina poll 12/14/07 12noon:

Huck......29%now........july 3%
Fred......17%now........july18%
Girly.....16%now........july30%
Romney....16%now........july3%

Then they flashed another page and mentioned Ron Paul and John McCain.
They flashed this on screen:

McCain....13%now........july21%
Paul......11%now........july2%

WOW!
Huckabee rose almost 25% in 5 months WITH NO FUCKIN' MONEY.

WOW!!
ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE!

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

LITTLE ROCK, ARK. — Two former Republican legislators from Mike Huckabee 's home state are in Iowa this week criticizing Huckabee's record on immigration and taxes on trips paid for by Ron Paul, one of Huckabee's Republican presidential rivals.

Paul's campaign said Thursday it was paying former Sen. Jim Holt and former Rep. Randy Minton about $5,000 each to go to Iowa for a series of radio interviews criticizing Huckabee's 10 1/2 years as Arkansas governor.

"We just want to make sure Iowans get the full picture of what Governor Huckabee did when he was in office," said Paul's campaign spokesman, Jesse Benton."There hasn't been a whole lot of information going out."

To counter the criticism, Huckabee brought in a group of longtime Arkansas supporters to defend his record.

Watch how my candidate flys their enemies into town to embarrass and belittle them.
Ron is too moral to do it himself.
He will never smear, only throw one of their votes at them!
He removes himself from the smear and lets the truth take root.

Go Ron Go!!!

[Steve13133]

Q: "What the hell are they afraid of, a Ron Paul presidency?"

A: YES!

[meeneecat]

The fact that the media absolutely, positively, do not want to give Ron Paul any media coverage makes him all the more desirable to me as a candidate. (Kucinich appears to be in the same boat, as he was blacked out in the recent debate) I have some disagreements with Paul, but by and large I agree with most of what he has to say, and aside from maybe Kucinich, what he says makes the most sense of any candidate out there. I can be sure of one thing however, whatever candidate the MSM and the rest of corporate American loves and gives the most attention to (i.e. Billary, Ghouliani, Mittens) we can be sure that those candidates are not "for the people" and I will not be casting my vote for any of them come November.

[PNX33]

You know, I gotta say at first I was skeptical about the MSM's supposed bias towards certain candidates (even after some of my closest friends tried showing me the error in my ways) but after seeing their treatment of Ron Paul throughout this campaign for the past 7-8 months, I'm absolutely convinced that the establishment elites, AIPAC are just as much a part of the problem as anyone in this administration. I know I'm not breaking new ground for most on this board but for me, it's been truly eye-opening to see the lies, tricks and manipulation geared at someone as honest and decent as Ron Paul. Those running the show have a very specific and increasingly transparent agenda imo. Peace.

[GeorgeInOregon]

ABC has been pandering to the Religious Right for quite some time. The amount of nauseating pro war and pro "christian" propaganda on their nightly "news" is appalling. Pravda could not do a better job of spoon feeding the populace government lies and distortions. How else would they get all of these so called "exclusive" interviews with such controlled creatures as Mr Bush and Mr Cheney.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

I wrote an email to ABC asking them to air the interview.
I said I had a mother who travelled and others that are not computer literate..

They wrote back with a link to buy the transcript on CD, saying they can not respond to thousands of emails a day...

What ever that meant, I dont know...They responded to me..
Were they trying to say they had thousands of emails to air this?
?
?

[JaseAllen]

duh-huh. Stossel might have earned a few awards and the respect of his peers, but he lost my respect years ago. Honestly, sometimes it's like he decides the outcome of a topic and then writes the rest of his piece to agree with his predetermined outcome. He did a couple of op/eds for news magazine show "20/20" that was worthy of Fox News.

[daybreak]

It might be of interest to readers that white supremacists have shown an interest in Ron Paul. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-388512.html
(Be aware that white supremacy is on the rebound.)
Apparently many of these racists agree with Paul's views on closed borders and blaming the Mexican people for economic and security problems in this country. KOS also has some information on the racism this involves. (Remember people thought Hitler had all the answers too.) Closed borders keep people in, are punitive and encourage xenophobia. Also, most of the people this involves are native, brown skinned people who ancestry goes back thousands of years on these american continents. The "free trade" has caused massive poverty throughout the world causing people to flee their homes in search of employment. Fair trade provides a healthy economic environment. Corporate greed has caused our unemployment and economic woes.

[Tyle]

ABC part of the MSM that is ignoring Ron Paul. If you support Ron Paul tune into PBS this Friday, December 14th at 8:30 pm to see "The Ron Paul Phenomenon" on NOW.

Maybe PBS should be the only station anyone watches ... ?

[Doofus]

If you have any doubt that Ron Paul is a Libertarian (not that there's
anything wrong with that), go visit Lew Rockwell's website. Also, a
convenient place to check gold prices. [ http://www.lewrockwell.com/ ]

Lew being one of the foremost Libertarians around.
Ron Paul is Lew's disciple & Lew is Ron's political mentor, apparently.

I have nothing against Libertarians, by the way, except that they are
too single-minded, about too many things.

[Tellmethetruth]

Des Moines, IA (December 11, 2007) " The Biden for President Campaign announced the launch of its new television ad, "Action," which will begin airing across Iowa tomorrow. In the 30-second spot, Sen. Biden asks Iowans to cast their support for a candidate with proven leadership, experience, and most importantly, action on the biggest challenges facing our country.

The ad points out that while promises are easily made, Joe Biden is the candidate with the longest record of promises kept. The Biden Plan for Iraq has received the bipartisan support of over 75 U.S. Senators, not to mention scores of Iraqi leaders, foreign affairs experts, and other public officials. And when Pakistan erupted in a state of crisis several weeks ago, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf called Joe Biden first"not President Bush. Sen. Biden concludes: "You don"t have to guess what I"d do as president. Just look at what I"ve done."

"If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America"s children, they should support another candidate," said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. "But I"m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night."

You can see the new television ad at http://www.joebiden.com/action.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

Generic Blogger:
Facts about Ron Paul.
Conservative Republican 1976-1987
1987 left Republican party and switched to Libertarian to run for President. After the election (8 months total) in late 1988, he then switched back to Republican until late.
You have never heard Ron Paul call himself a Libertarian. You will NEVER find a link that he says this or even acknowledges this.
He is NOT a Libertarian, the media and opposer's say this. HE DOES NOT.
In fact, when a media personality refers to him as Libertarian, he either
A.) passes over it and ignores it.
or
B.) in a nice, but corrective tone would say something like:
"Well, I like to call my self a 'constitutionalist'. Ya know, smaller government, less taxes, more freedom and prosperity."
Ron sees him self as a uniter, not a divider like the other candidates...
He feels to correct the media would be insulting to a big part of the Republican party. So he choses what the constitution TELLS him he must do. TAKE ALL the views of ALL the people and NEVER alienate a view from your treasure chest!
Ron is a very "true" person. He holds many libertarian views. SOME he does not, but he feels they have a right to them and he still must stand up for them. Just like he has now sided with Democrats to allow Social Security to remain funded and not to get rid of medicare all at once.

He changed his view on this. I watched it happen.
He said the people want these programs. Who am I, in big government, to tell them NO?
So what did he do? Well what he always does, he offered another competitive option for Kids below a certain age to opt out.
INGENIOUS!
He did what the constitution directed him to do...Hear the voice of ALL the people not just the ones that fill your coffers or hold your personal views.
Ron ties himself to no party yet.
Maybe a new "Constitutionalist party?"