Full Version: What is with the media and Ron Paul?
The daily show did a great schtick on the media ignoring of Ron Paul.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/...2011-ali-velshi
Even fox disses the guy- best line by John- "This guy planted the grass in the grass roots movement, Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman are moral majority members in tri corner hats"- he gets a practical standing ovation by the debate crowd, and the moderator rolls his eyes at the guy. It is weird even- seems like Ron Paul beating Bachman in polls would be a good idea to focus on Ron Paul?
Why is the media going out of it's way to ignore Ron Paul?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/...2011-ali-velshi
Even fox disses the guy- best line by John- "This guy planted the grass in the grass roots movement, Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman are moral majority members in tri corner hats"- he gets a practical standing ovation by the debate crowd, and the moderator rolls his eyes at the guy. It is weird even- seems like Ron Paul beating Bachman in polls would be a good idea to focus on Ron Paul?
Why is the media going out of it's way to ignore Ron Paul?
Why is the media going out of it's way to ignore Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is not electable. Worse than that, he isn't very attractive so putting him on television is a double whammy.
Ron Paul is a dovish fiscal conservative. He does have some fanatical followers.
Ron Paul has simply too many controversial positions and statements that he has made that will easily be turned into a smear machine against him. He was against going in to get Osama bin Laden. He's against civil rights legislation. It doesn't matter if he has a nuanced position on these issues. The sound bite machine will eat him up.
Ron Paul is not electable. Worse than that, he isn't very attractive so putting him on television is a double whammy.
Ron Paul is a dovish fiscal conservative. He does have some fanatical followers.
Ron Paul has simply too many controversial positions and statements that he has made that will easily be turned into a smear machine against him. He was against going in to get Osama bin Laden. He's against civil rights legislation. It doesn't matter if he has a nuanced position on these issues. The sound bite machine will eat him up.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Aug 23 2011, 06:25 AM) 
Why is the media going out of it's way to ignore Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is not electable. Worse than that, he isn't very attractive so putting him on television is a double whammy.
Ron Paul is a dovish fiscal conservative. He does have some fanatical followers.
Ron Paul has simply too many controversial positions and statements that he has made that will easily be turned into a smear machine against him. He was against going in to get Osama bin Laden. He's against civil rights legislation. It doesn't matter if he has a nuanced position on these issues. The sound bite machine will eat him up.
Ron Paul is not electable. Worse than that, he isn't very attractive so putting him on television is a double whammy.
Ron Paul is a dovish fiscal conservative. He does have some fanatical followers.
Ron Paul has simply too many controversial positions and statements that he has made that will easily be turned into a smear machine against him. He was against going in to get Osama bin Laden. He's against civil rights legislation. It doesn't matter if he has a nuanced position on these issues. The sound bite machine will eat him up.
Regardless, it is downright weird the way they ignore him- did you see the part where they mentioned the first second and fourth place finisher in the polls, but ignored him coming in third? That is downright bizarre and smack of collusion in the media.
I think its a combination of him having run and lost twice already plus managing to be both crazy and dull at the same time, you pretty much know what he's going to say. The other candidates are just more interesting & unpredictable. He's become the Ralph Nader of the right.
Why is the media going out of it's way to ignore Ron Paul?
The media is comfortable with the duopoly. They and the two parties aid and abet each other in an incestuous dance of profit and power. Who would want to disrupt that?
Even though nominally a Republican, Ron Paul represents for many people a candidate outside of the mainstream; an alternate point of view in a political world where anyone not ideologically affiliated with the GOP or the Democrats are usually lumped in an amorphous demographic of Independents at best, Undecideds at worst. Recognizing the support that Ron Paul has would force the media to acknowledge that there is more context, nuance and thoughtful arguments than what is scripted and proffered by the Big 2. They might also have to contend intellectually that those two parties really aren't all that far apart, and that it's their connivance that constructs the illusion of difference.
The media is comfortable with the duopoly. They and the two parties aid and abet each other in an incestuous dance of profit and power. Who would want to disrupt that?
Even though nominally a Republican, Ron Paul represents for many people a candidate outside of the mainstream; an alternate point of view in a political world where anyone not ideologically affiliated with the GOP or the Democrats are usually lumped in an amorphous demographic of Independents at best, Undecideds at worst. Recognizing the support that Ron Paul has would force the media to acknowledge that there is more context, nuance and thoughtful arguments than what is scripted and proffered by the Big 2. They might also have to contend intellectually that those two parties really aren't all that far apart, and that it's their connivance that constructs the illusion of difference.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 23 2011, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Aug 23 2011, 06:25 AM)
Why is the media going out of it's way to ignore Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is not electable. Worse than that, he isn't very attractive so putting him on television is a double whammy.
Ron Paul is a dovish fiscal conservative. He does have some fanatical followers.
Ron Paul has simply too many controversial positions and statements that he has made that will easily be turned into a smear machine against him. He was against going in to get Osama bin Laden. He's against civil rights legislation. It doesn't matter if he has a nuanced position on these issues. The sound bite machine will eat him up.
Ron Paul is not electable. Worse than that, he isn't very attractive so putting him on television is a double whammy.
Ron Paul is a dovish fiscal conservative. He does have some fanatical followers.
Ron Paul has simply too many controversial positions and statements that he has made that will easily be turned into a smear machine against him. He was against going in to get Osama bin Laden. He's against civil rights legislation. It doesn't matter if he has a nuanced position on these issues. The sound bite machine will eat him up.
Regardless, it is downright weird the way they ignore him- did you see the part where they mentioned the first second and fourth place finisher in the polls, but ignored him coming in third? That is downright bizarre and smack of collusion in the media.
Ron Paul should get as much coverage as the other candidates. It isn't supposed to be up to the media which candidates to cover and which not to. I like some of his ideas but disagree with a few notable ones. The people have a right to know what the man stands for, so that it is more of a real selection that the Republican primaries will reflect.
To add to what Dontreadonme has stated, there is a comfort level with easy media and the major political party power brokers. There is a predictability of access. Media can count on getting front row seats, the first questions, and interviews when they seek them. Easy media does not need to be worried about understanding and knowing subjects. Media does not worry about it ignorance being exposed. All of this is uncertain if a Ron Paul is in charge.
Interviewers can be seen struggling to keep up when Ron is asked about monetary policy or when economic theory is touched upon. It is easier for easy media to distance themselves or dismiss Ron Paul than understand the issues.
It is not just Ron Paul who is treated poorly. This cycle, Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson have both been give the cold shoulder. Gary Johnson is another true small government politician. Less power in Washington scares easy media. I am not sure what the deal is on Roemer.
Ron Paul is getting exposure this election cycle. Ron Paul registered a zero in media coverage four years ago even though he has a leading fund raiser with solid support.
Interviewers can be seen struggling to keep up when Ron is asked about monetary policy or when economic theory is touched upon. It is easier for easy media to distance themselves or dismiss Ron Paul than understand the issues.
It is not just Ron Paul who is treated poorly. This cycle, Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson have both been give the cold shoulder. Gary Johnson is another true small government politician. Less power in Washington scares easy media. I am not sure what the deal is on Roemer.
Ron Paul is getting exposure this election cycle. Ron Paul registered a zero in media coverage four years ago even though he has a leading fund raiser with solid support.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 24 2011, 04:05 PM)
Why is the media going out of it's way to ignore Ron Paul?
The media is comfortable with the duopoly. They and the two parties aid and abet each other in an incestuous dance of profit and power. Who would want to disrupt that?
Even though nominally a Republican, Ron Paul represents for many people a candidate outside of the mainstream; an alternate point of view in a political world where anyone not ideologically affiliated with the GOP or the Democrats are usually lumped in an amorphous demographic of Independents at best, Undecideds at worst. Recognizing the support that Ron Paul has would force the media to acknowledge that there is more context, nuance and thoughtful arguments than what is scripted and proffered by the Big 2. They might also have to contend intellectually that those two parties really aren't all that far apart, and that it's their connivance that constructs the illusion of difference.
The media is comfortable with the duopoly. They and the two parties aid and abet each other in an incestuous dance of profit and power. Who would want to disrupt that?
Even though nominally a Republican, Ron Paul represents for many people a candidate outside of the mainstream; an alternate point of view in a political world where anyone not ideologically affiliated with the GOP or the Democrats are usually lumped in an amorphous demographic of Independents at best, Undecideds at worst. Recognizing the support that Ron Paul has would force the media to acknowledge that there is more context, nuance and thoughtful arguments than what is scripted and proffered by the Big 2. They might also have to contend intellectually that those two parties really aren't all that far apart, and that it's their connivance that constructs the illusion of difference.
I look forward to your supporting every single assertion you made above, as well as the "sum total" thereof, with ... data. And when I say "data", I really mean ... DATA. Not personal anecdotes. Not a collection of articles. Not a collection of quotes. Etc.
After all, you wouldn't want ... "Dtom" ... to come after you for behaving like a myrmidon, i.e. someone whose belief in X is utterly unrelated to whether X is true/valid, right?
Right?
And, surely, you wouldn't want "MMN" to come after you for WHINING about YOUR preferred candidate(s) not getting what YOU assert should be their due attention and resulting political success being due to ... media bias, right?
Right?
So, ... proceed, "Dtom". As they said when I was in school (hopefully, they still do): "Show your work."
ps:
Feel free to start a whole new thread in response, such that it doesn't detract from this one. I'll be there. Guaranteed.
Why is the media going out of it's way to ignore Ron Paul?
Last night Bill O'Reilly said that they have invited Ron Paul onto his show multiple times, but he always turns them down. Their conclusion was that he is uncomfortable with dialogue and would rather give a speech where they can control the message. Bill said he wanted to ask Ron Paul about nukes in Iran and whether Iran getting nukes and potentially using them against Israel would destabilize the region and be in the best interests of the US.
Ron Paul was on O'Reilly's show shortly after 9/11 where O'Reilly asked him about his non-intervention views. I don't think he's been back since.
Last night Bill O'Reilly said that they have invited Ron Paul onto his show multiple times, but he always turns them down. Their conclusion was that he is uncomfortable with dialogue and would rather give a speech where they can control the message. Bill said he wanted to ask Ron Paul about nukes in Iran and whether Iran getting nukes and potentially using them against Israel would destabilize the region and be in the best interests of the US.
Ron Paul was on O'Reilly's show shortly after 9/11 where O'Reilly asked him about his non-intervention views. I don't think he's been back since.
akaCG, I am not sure what data you are expecting? You did address Dontreadonme but as I am in agreement with his statements as well as being someone who thinks Ron Paul is excellent I figure I can respond.
I do not know of any academic study on the current election cycle. If there is one on current political coverage it is collecting data and it will not be concluded until later. There was an academic study done after the previous presidential election cycle which. I used it as the source of my comment about Ron Paul registering a zero for media coverage during the presidential race four years ago.
As there is no entity available which tallies media coverage I do not think there will be any data to provide to you other than observational evidence.
I do not think it too difficult to see the bias of the coverage. Why do two former governors get excluded from the debates held by CNN and FOX ? The rational given was that they needed to have 1% in at least five polls yet they were not included in the polls. Seems like a preordained excuse to me. When Gary Johnson was included in the polls he had the required 1% so they made sure Johnson was not on too many polls. The Ron Paul slight after the Ames Straw Poll results did not require much more data than moderate observation of the news.
In this thread, there is a tug-of-war between the liberal and conservative camps as to the nature of media coverage. There is no data which nails the subject close. The one study about Ron Paul coverage four years ago does make the case that there is bias against candidates who are against the status quo.
I am against any determination of candidates by media. It is important people are aware of the blatant bias of media in its coverage of legitimate presidential candidates.
I do not know of any academic study on the current election cycle. If there is one on current political coverage it is collecting data and it will not be concluded until later. There was an academic study done after the previous presidential election cycle which. I used it as the source of my comment about Ron Paul registering a zero for media coverage during the presidential race four years ago.
As there is no entity available which tallies media coverage I do not think there will be any data to provide to you other than observational evidence.
I do not think it too difficult to see the bias of the coverage. Why do two former governors get excluded from the debates held by CNN and FOX ? The rational given was that they needed to have 1% in at least five polls yet they were not included in the polls. Seems like a preordained excuse to me. When Gary Johnson was included in the polls he had the required 1% so they made sure Johnson was not on too many polls. The Ron Paul slight after the Ames Straw Poll results did not require much more data than moderate observation of the news.
In this thread, there is a tug-of-war between the liberal and conservative camps as to the nature of media coverage. There is no data which nails the subject close. The one study about Ron Paul coverage four years ago does make the case that there is bias against candidates who are against the status quo.
I am against any determination of candidates by media. It is important people are aware of the blatant bias of media in its coverage of legitimate presidential candidates.
Its tempting to think the lack of Ron Paul coverage, or of the marginal candidates is about ideology but its not, its about budgets. News department budgets have been slashed and every News Director is looking how to deploy their scant resources in a way most likely to get them something worth putting on the air. Ron Paul's positions haven't changed in 20+ years and he doesn't make a lot of gaffes whereas if you just videotape everything Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry say you're almost guaranteed something worthy of the evening news. I work with a lot of TV News outlets and its all about getting ratings (= Advertizing dollars), fighting off budget cuts and keeping your job.
It is entirely concievable that Ron Paul will be the frontrunner soon:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-ro...-200845109.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-ro...-200845109.html
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.