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

[Wiredwilly]

ABC is obsolete.
The election is a long way off.
Ron Paul / Kucinich 08'

[Novista]

Wow, a lot of comments and I'm late to the party.

Here's a link about Social Security and economy generally:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-12-03-debt_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

So, I have to ask 'progressives', does there look like a problem impending?

And as for now ...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-disability_10nat.ART.State.Edition2.36a4c46.html

looks to me like there's already problems. But I think on other liberal sites who assert that such are only 'Republican talking points'.

Only thing I'm sure of: any government statistic is a LIE!

Interesting to see the dyed-in-the-wool liberals leap in here with their own 'talking points' about the Paul platform. Extrapolation from liberatarianism to robber barons is such fun to read. I know, my bad, making fun of the ill-informed.

But I read all sides, of 'the commons' and Austrian economy theory and the rest, see some valid points of view in many places. Like many, I would vote either for DK or RP. Or both. :-)

Funny how people who defend the necessity of income tax seem to assume it always existed. But in 1905 the federal government's biggest take was the alcohol tax. Which is why, when he needed the revenue, FDR got Prohibition repealed. LOL.

[cheryl379]

A good hard look at the so called Patriot Act
tells you everything you need to know about the importance of waking up and taking back this country. A document that takes days to read was put out on the congressional intranet with 15 minutes allowed for reading before voting was required.

Ron Paul on Patriot Act Two:
"Rather than effectively fight threats to our national security and safety, Patriot Two would endanger the liberty of every American citizen and destroy what remains of America's constitutional republic. This proposal gives the Federal Government expanded power to snoop into the private affairs of American citizens without acquiring a warrant or meeting the constitutional standards of probable cause. However, perhaps the most disturbing portion of the draft is the provision that would give the government the power to revoke United States citizenship for engaging in political activity."

No wonder ABC wants Paul muzzled.

Thank you for a wonderful piece.

www.blacksheepnews.com

[imsosure]

Too bad he had to run as a Republican. Too many bad memories of the Republicans form just the past few years let alone historically. Otherwise giving out bongs and bullets would fit right in to RP's way and I wouldn't mind that a bit.

[frost12]

RON PAUL IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO HAS THE COURAGE TO LIVE UP TO HIS OATH OF OFFICE--
TO LITERALLY HONOR AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, AMERICANS HAVE FORSAKEN THE TENETS OF THE CONSTITUTION OUT OF FEAR AND IGNORANCE.

[mamacat]

I saw some Rep. Paul interviews on HBO's Bill Maher and on Comedy Central's Jon Stewart. While not as long or in depth as Charlie Rose or Stephanopolis's show, at least it gave us a chance to hear someone talk about issues for a change.
It is at times like these that the writers' stike hits home. The main stream media refuse to do their jobs, and feed us gossip stories instead of issues stories.
At the least, Rep. Paul talks about issues instead of platitudes. I have a feeling he really is the best of all the GOP candidates, but without more exposure, we will never know.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

ABC is lobbying to have a mini-Disney built inside the Green Zone..

[drblack]

They give time to the obvious CIA PR man who has nothing factual to say and who spouts off BS designed by psychologists to manipulate opinion to accept torture but they have no time for a Presidential candidate who has many more supporters than is being reported?
ABC should be ashamed...­especially since they have so little new-content since the media moguls are too greedy to give a fair deal to TV writers?

[janmarie]

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that takes a stand against global corporate fascism. All this abortion squabbling while the ship is sinking....ug.

[janmarie]

As a female who is NOT a pro-lifer, I find many more important reasons to support Ron Paul.
The hell with the abortion agenda right now we need an honest principled candidate who does not support global corporate fascism right now that is without a doubt Ron Paul!

[AerynSun]

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

What is past is prologue.

Before ABC was sold to Disney, it was owned by Capital Cities Communications, a little company started up by a bunch of "ex"-intel guys, such as ex-CIA Director William Casey. CCC bought ABC right after the "Rewald Affair". Within months of the purchase, the investigative unit had been dispersed. See Pulitzer Prize nominated journalist John Kelly's story here - http://www.wanttoknow.info/massmedia#kelly. More on the Rewald Affair can be found here on DeepBlackLies.co.UK - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/secretgoldtreaty/secret_treaty_part%202.2.htm and here - http://www.druggingamerica.com/EExplosive_Secrets_part.pdf (Former federal agent Rodney Stich).

What is feared is what is always feared by our friends at Langley ... another President who might threaten to break the CIA up into a million pieces ... like JFK threatened.

I feel like the oldest person here.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Who owns ABC? Hmmmm....

[raker]

Regarding John Stossel: being applauded by your fellow ninnies is being neither effective nor respectable. Stossel has the cheapest vaudeville act on TV. It works like this. Take any sensible notion, say, that pollution is bad for us, and support the opposite view. Support your view with a lot of nonsense, but say it with certainty in a voice that asks "how can everyone be so stupid?" It's the same act John Bolton uses in politics. It seems that lots of people like being told they're stupid, and Stossel and Bolton oblige them, to wild applause.

[leftLibertarian]

America, the modern birthplace of liberty has lost much of it. Too many busybodies, do gooders, and 'progressives' wanting enforce their idea of it through more laws.

Legalize liberty, if it's not too late.

[apc3161]

I thought they were great interviews. I'm sure my family would want to watch them but they aren't very internet savvy.

I wrote a letter to 20/20 here

http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=20/20

Asking them to air the interview so my family could watch it.