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

[Charidan]

While I disapprove of ABC censoring the interview, Paul Stossel is a very poor example of what we want to see on TV. Among many of his outrageous ideas, one that I can never forgive is his contention that price gouging during the Katrina disaster makes good economic sense and then proceeds to give an explanation that can be rebutted by a high school social studies student. Stossel is actually a poster boy of bad TV, sensationalistic, shock TV at its worst.

[bobpomeroy]

typical ABC. I don't watch anything on that network, including anything on our local channel. They have about the same general credibility as W himself

[oogabooga]

Here's a real simple test you can try on your local members of Congress. Call up their offices and ask their staffers why the member of Congress voted for the unconstitional measures that violate various sections of the Constitution. They'll invariably say, well they want to keep us safe. Then ask, well does the Congressperson believe in the Constitution? Hasn't it kept us safe for 231 year? Did the Congressperson swear to uphold the Constitution or to obey a certain person in power? You'll get befuddled answers, silence or annoyance on the other end. Then say, out here in the hinterlands, we like our freedom given us in the Constitution just fine, thanks, come hell or bin Ladin.

[DeccaDo]

You posed a great question- Are they afraid of Ron Paul becoming president-? But that question should have included a more accurate and telling phase...Are they afraid of the ideas Ron Paul promotes. I'm sure if Ron Paul ever rose to the position of likely candidate nominated- you would not see interviews, you would see great smear campaigns. And, if by some unlikely chance voters still showed him favor- you would have an assassination. Nevertheless-as Noam Chomsky said; Winning or losing is not the goal- being intellectually honest is.

[richw23]

I don't disagree, but I used to consider myself a libertarian until I realized the only press libertarian ideas ever get is from nutjobs who want to do away with welfare in the next two weeks, for example, so I gave that up a while back. And I've already seen Ron Paul back away from some libertarian tenets:

1. Waffled on less popular libertarian principles on Daily Show plus came off as a crochety goof
2. Raised hands on don't ask don't tell

So I'm not sure what he is, but I'd no more vote for him than Mike Gravel. But your point is well taken - but maybe people just get sick of rants and harangues.

[xona]

Ahhhh, in case no one is noticing, ABC is a
TV empire in decline. Its best days in the past.
It is now a mouthpiece for right-wing corporate crooks, its corporate board a home for homophobic bigots and creepy corporate crooks.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

This is the media we have..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mmY7giY4s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afxi8y9_8e0&NR=1

[green13]

Is ABC engineering an election? Isn't that illegal? Where are the Ron Paul attornies that should be getting $50 million for this indescretion - this descrimination against a candidate because of his Constitutional political views?

[Technician]

What is ABC afraid of? Perhaps the Clinton Camp told them that if they aired this interview they would lose access to Bill and Hilliary. That threat worked with GQ why not with ABC? It's been clear for years that ABC is just a lap dog for the Clintons.

[BobOnThis]

Welcome to the 21st Century BC (biased cowards).

Nothing the God & Gov't crowd hates more then truth, honesty, and rational laws based on the Constitution & rule of lawful laws!

[DMM1029]

I have for some time now advocated challeging a network's broadcast license when up for renewal on the basis that they are not meeting the basic standards of the rather broad 'public responsibilities'. I have found the networks get scared silly when they hear of such a challenge. Seems like not airing Ron Paul in prime time is a gross disservice to the public, and a possible violation of ABC's license.

[wrabbitt]

We would rather see political change happen on the internet. Just because our system wears blinders, and can't stand change,don't mean we are the same way.Besides ABC stand for Any Body Care? The candidates are downplaying his popularity, Are they afraid of change? is that why everybody trys to change the subject? Is he the dark horse who will bring change to our crumbling , greedy government? Will he restore the government to the people? Maybe the power of the internet will shine thru...

[frolveda]

the more i hear politicians
the better i like ron paul...

diogenes

[Mair1]

"What the hell are they afraid of"

I believe that you answered your own question quite accurately, Mr. Simon!

[Dianekkdi]

This is a really great Ron Paul song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k70NQ7Pdi98&NR=1

Check it out on youtube. Give it a vote. Share. :) It's catchy.