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

[Quantumystic]

Paul has become a truly dangerous man to the political "elites". Remember the movie "Pump Up the Volume"?
"The Truth is a VIRUS!"... and thanks to the Internet, Ron Paul has gone PANDEMIC.
Over 85,000 organized supporters: http://ronpaul.meetup.com/about/
Over $10.85 million in the 4thQ... and God help them all come this Sunday, "TeaParty'07".
Paul is already showing a 4-way tie for 3rd in Iowa according to the most recent Newsweek/AP:
http://www.newsweek.com/media/75/0714_newsweek_poll.pdf
And nobody is talking about New Hampshire, where they're terrified Paul will WIN and be thrust into the national spotlight. But it's already too late to stop the momentum, when you've had over 126,000 unique campaign contributors just in this quarter.
Welcome to The Revolution.

[Pdubya]

Matt, again, you're on top of things, THANKS!

Here's the interview:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=3970423&page=1

I posed these questions to ABC:

Why don't you air this?

Do you think that you're ratings wouldn't go up?

Do you think this too controversial a story for a political news story?

The answer to the last two questions would be favorable for ABC. So the original question still remains: Why don't you air this?!!

Simple: unadulterated censorship.

Thank you Matt. The rEVOLution will not be televised.

[BillZBubb]

ABC was rightfully reluctant to put the dissembling Stossel on the air with Ron Paul.

[cognate]

"ABC does not want its viewers to learn about Ron Paul. What the hell are they afraid of, a Ron Paul presidency?"

You said it.

I wonder what they'll do when the Ron Paul blimp makes its debut over Washington, DC, New York, and Boston over the next few days.

[RichHayes]

The reason Ron Paul is being pitched as a non-entity is down to his views on the Federal Reserve. Which is very arguably unconstitutional.

This is americas real democracy at work. the people dont get to decide jack, unless they thoroughly engage with the process and inform themselves of the choices. relying on the media to inform your choices is bordering on futile. and those most heavily invested in the process in turn rely on apathy from voters to ensure their candidates are victorious.

[FDRbyGodDemocrat]

No, no, you've got it all wrong. It's Stossel who doesn't merit the air time.

[sweetuniverse]

We'd have a much more interesting dialogues if both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich got more coverage. We shouldn't forget that no one was talking about balanced budgets until Perot came to the fore...

[vippy]

In fact I don't see much airtime for Ron Paul or for Dennis Kucinich, both are my favorite because we need change and both are extreme, which we need. Most people don't even listen to Ron Paul, they only hear what they want to hear and then make up their mind, ridiculous!
But then America always voted with emotions not facts. So easy just to look up voting records and draw the conclusion from there.
Hillary and Obama would not fare as well.

[DoTheEndsJustifyTheMeans]

As a Ron Paul supporter, I apologize ahead of time for any nasty comments from others. Why can't can't the mainstream media let mainstream America decide if Ron Paul's ideas are any good. Why do they have to choose for us.

[Bladernr1001]

Doubt you are gonna find very many Ron Paul advocates on this socialist site.

Very suprising post to see here....bu­t I like it.