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

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

My god Matt!
Do you see what these people are actually discussing?

Where else at huffpo does one go to receive these keen insights?
Has anyone been to the Hillary thread?
What about the Hickabee thread?
Nothing!
All fighting!!
All of them..
We discuss issues here and we know our candidates response, actions and voting record.
Are these not truth?

Even the ones that disagree do not bring up his strongest suits.

1. WAR.
2. Economy and Sound Currency.
3. Restoration of our Constitution and the elimination of ALL presidential powers stolen...
FOR GOOD!

They refuse talk of these things why they worry of food stamps and who will own Mt. Rushmore!
LOLOLOL
They are more curious of who has sent him a donation rather than why!
Amusing!

Just because the media has forgotten the Iraq war, I will not, neither will Ron.
We both love our troops and want them home with us!

[Ginzaman]

Two hypocrites on the Net. How perfect. Just make sure they don't destroy you like they're doing to Kucinich.

[EyeWantOneNation]

What I see this article is really saying, is that since the only wacko's who are going to vote for this nut job are on the Internet, why waste valuable airtime???

Works for me!!!!!!!!!!

[fumes]

it was a great interview, too. say, anyone know how the blimp is doing? tea party next sunday, be there!

[crackpot]

What hard line libertarians advocate would result in a new feudalism, with no one to keep thieving warlords and robber barons in check. It's about balance. In England, when the local government was corrupt, and people couldn't even get a fair hearing before a local judge, they could appeal to the King's judges, who traveled on a circuit, hence the circuit court of appeals. When the central government got too powerful, the Lords would band together to stand against the King. Our Democracy evolved from this. Who's going to enforce the law in a libertarian utopia? Private firms? So justice will go to the highest bidder every time. How about private fire departments? God help you if your house is on fire and you're broke or have bad credit.

[Mormon4Truth]

Advice to Ron Paul on how to get major news attention:

Point out that minorities (unless backed by some type of a machine) will never get to play on the same field. This holds for blacks, Latinos, the University of Hawaii's football team, and Ron Paul. Apparently, even if you are qualified to be in the game, you will be shunted into a side show BASED SOLELY ON YOUR RACE, GEOGRAPHIC ISOLATION, OR PARTY BOSSES...unless, of course, you have some well-monied machine providing you with direct access passes.

Yes, discrimination is alive and well in America. And in the upper echalons it is not illegal. Because, after all, what is it that the ruling classes can do that is illegal?

[PaulDonaldson]

The man is constantly trying to keep Ron Paul down!! Spread the word and help beat the system. Ron is the only anti-war candidate from either party that even has a realistic shot.

John McCain & Ron Paul Collide On Iraq
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=8ed6e939-08cc-4671-a4de-0db01baa242e

Ron Paul - Congressional Approval Needed For War?
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=bd4472f6-1378-4ae2-8a3b-abea27381c91

Ron Paul's Heated Exchange w/ Chris Wallace
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=bb6bd5c3-94d8-49bf-8445-d4e2ab212ba7

Ron Paul Would Eliminate IRS, CIA etc.
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=8f8e103c-c756-499e-869f-6dc3dab706d9

Huckabee & Ron Paul Debate Iraq
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=c2644597-481a-4d12-a275-3591ec753b19

Ron Paul on Republicans & The Economy
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=fac491ea-fbd6-459a-8ac4-4998cc04588f

Ron Paul On Iraq
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=392bd83f-2cb6-4597-b186-e7cdb89befb9

Ron Paul on Which Programs He Would Cut To Decrease Spending
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=6571091d-4f59-4348-85d1-a76ddd5dba74

Ron Paul Talks About Republicans Losing Their Identity
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=de260ed9-6613-46d6-bd6c-a76f9ff739fe

Ron Paul Suggests Airlines Handle Their OWN Security
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=f896d072-2193-4b0c-993d-314b3f547260

McCain On Iraq & Terrorism - Ron Paul Responds
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=de454d4a-521b-437e-8c61-6fe611897598

[luziannagirl]

So, under Ron Paul's strict property rights environmental policy, I would be able to sue essentially everyone else for the non-point source pollution poisoning the air I breathe?

Would I own all the air that comes across my property line?

What about when I travel off my property? Would I need to carry my own air with me on my back in a breather?

And that's just the air. There's the water, wildlife, public health (yep, it can be considered a commonwealth esp regarding epidemiology), the climate, the airwaves, even the public roads and other civilizati­on-enablin­g infrastructure.

Just because someone believes in providing for "the commons", as our Founding Fathers did, does not make one a Communist.

[luziannagirl]

Some things we all value and depend upon for our health, happiness, and very survival, yet these things defy private ownership. Air, water, wildlife; these essentials know know property lines or international boundaries and are impossible for an individual or corporation to own.

John Stossel doesn't buy the idea of a commonwealth managed by the public, collectively. He'd prefer even our national parks to be corporatized and developed.

Wonder how Ron Paul feels about the commons? Has he, too, come to the conclusion it's dog-eat-dog, everyman for himself, he who dies with the biggest pile wins the game?

[dsigeorge]

Yes, big MSM, military, pharma, insurance, wall street and oil (to name most) are very afraid of little old Ron. I hope he kicks butt and I'll do what I can to swing his boot.

[jasonball]

While I agree with the main thrust of this piece, I disagree with the following statement.

"When a long-ignored philosophy begins gaining currency in the marketplace of ideas, it's the role of free media to explore those ideas, explain them, and evaluate them on their merits."

Wrong. It's the role of the media to perhaps explore - mainly record these ideas. It is the role of the people to interpret them and evaluate them. The media as "interpreter of facts" or "explainer" as stated in Matt Simon is a perversion of the role of media in a democracy. It is a high and overt form of paternalism that should have no place in a free land. Journalists are experts at journalism and their interpretations of events are totally irrelevant, as any given event has any number of individuals more qualified to speak and to the meaning and significance of said event. And Journalist’s expertise is in how to record, what to record, and when to record. And while it is common sense that no journalist can possibly attain true objectivity in the recording of events, we are still better off when journalists strive for this ideal. From Cronkite as interpreter - however good an interpreter he may have been - to Chris Matthews, something has gone awry.

Your criticisms of the corporate media are just the tip of the iceberg on the problems we are facing in the dissemination of information in our democracy.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

This is rightly called a revolution.
Our power is soon to be uncovered.
The people will soon learn the depth of a nonviolent movement, unlike ANY other in U.S. History!

Watch this wizard of the Constitution use the only "true" power granted him, to squash the hungry corporations and the feeble establishment..
Watch how he uses their own platforms against them!
His ground will be firm and his support powerful!
Oh, the joy I have to know what they have coming.
It is truly the best gift of the season.
There have been so many dark seasons.....

Watch this man play the MSM.
The power of the people will control this segment, as well.
They will be overtaken with voices they DID NOT even know existed!
We have seen this before, here in Galveston.
He is well practiced.
He has won EVERY TIME!
WE WILL WIN, AGAIN!
Watch how he plays the media like a finely tuned fiddle.
Watch how the corrupt polticians become putty in OUR hands..

The bombs will begin to fall..
One right after the other..
Sides that have been chosen will become apparent very soon.
One is either with us, or against us..
We ARE the people..
ALL THE PEOPLE!
Going against us, would be a mistake.
This I am sure.

Mr. Simon sees what has happened..He too knows its time...
We have been silenced too long.

Thanks Matt.

[Pyrum]

Thank you for your post, Matt Simon, and you're right, a Ron Paul presidency is exactly what they're afraid of.

[Xrepug]

I am a Ron Paul supporter, I also believe that most of the people that don't support him are wanting or getting something from the government. I'm tired of the government being a do all for everybody at my expence. Tired and overtaxed!

[Kungfublood]

Abusive suppressors of what should be the peoples right to information on the air waves that belong to the people not the networks should have their licences suspended and be shut down pending investigation for lies and violations of the Rico act.strangly this box will not allow any alteration of text so here it is in first draft