This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Mainstream Media Discover Ron Paul
By Wolf Richter www.testosteronepit.com
The Wall Street Journal, NPR, The New York Times, and other mainstream media have engaged in an obvious and silly boycott of presidential candidate Ron Paul. Report after report about the Republican primary excluded him, though occasionally they’d mention his name—to be fair and balanced. For example, the media coverage on October 11 ahead of the GOP debate that evening looked like this:
- The Wall Street Journal’s front-page article, “Debates Take Candidates for a Bumpy Ride,” didn’t mention Ron Paul.
- The New York Times’ front-page article, “Five Things to Watch for in the G.O.P. Debate,” mentioned Ron Paul's name at the bottom, in a parenthetical remark that acknowledged his presence.
- NPR's four-and-a-half minute report covered Sarah Palin's and Chris Christie's exit from the race; Herman Cain's from-the-outside strategy; Mitt Romney's 25% ceiling and his “Mormon problem”; and Rick Perry’s lousy performance during debates. But no mention of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul simply didn’t exist. Maybe the mainstream media were trying to relegate him to oblivion because his anti-Fed and anti-war viewpoints were inconvenient. But even people who weren’t supporters of Ron Paul were outraged: a democracy that wants to be vibrant needs adequate news coverage of major political players. And their outrage lit up the blogosphere, social media, and other outlets.
But a new era has dawned: The New York Times has discovered Ron Paul. Or were the editors afraid that, by sticking to their boycott, they’d have to make do with this headline: "Romney finishes second in Iowa Caucus, Perry Third, and Gingrich Fourth." Which would have been a riot.
Instead: “Paul Moves into Lead in Iowa Forecast,” was today’s headline in the NYT. The article discussed the dynamics in Iowa, where Ron Paul is now expected to beat Romney and demolish Perry and Gingrich. And then the author mused that "...all bets would be off if Mr. Paul won New Hampshire too."
I was stunned to read this in the NYT. And there was one article after another that at least mentioned Ron Paul in some significant way. So I did some counting:
- December 19: 5 articles (as of noon)
- December 18: 6 articles
- December 17: 4 articles
- December 16: 11 articles
OK, a couple of them were by Paul Krugman who was firing off ineffectual broadsides at Ron Paul. But others were outright positive.
For example, an article today on Gingrich's tax plan paid a compliment to Ron Paul—the Tax Foundation had given Gingrich’s plan a C+ and Ron Paul’s plan a B (Huntsman scored highest with a B+).
But he hasn’t won the mainstream media battle just yet. Yesterday’s article, “G.O.P. Contests Near, and the Pace Picks Up,” discussed the major Republican candidates:
- Newt Gingrich—3 paragraphs, 168 words (which ironically included "Mr. Gingrich is leading in polls in Iowa").
- Mitt Romney—3 paragraphs, 181 words.
- Ron Paul—1 paragraph, 73 words.
- Rick Perry—2 paragraphs, 127 words.
- Michele Bachman—2 paragraphs, 133 words.
- Jon Huntsman—1 paragraph, 94 words.
- Rick Santorum—1 paragraph, 41 words.
Of all the contenders, the leader in Iowa, Ron Paul, was given the second smallest piece of verbal real estate. Nevertheless, and unlike before, he was there bright and visible.
But it gets better for Ron Paul: "Paul’s Ground Game,’ in Place Since ’08, Gives Him an Edge” admired the depth, longevity, and effectiveness of his campaign organization in Iowa. And even potential issues came across as oblique praise:
His consistent positions over the years also set him apart from other candidates bedeviled by charges of flip-flopping. But they could also undermine him, as his debate performance Thursday highlighted a rigid antiwar stance out of sync with many Republicans.
After reading it, one wonders if the reporter wasn’t secretly rooting for Ron Paul. And it isn’t just The New York Times. NPR and others have followed. This kind of mainstream media coverage is a huge win for Ron Paul—and for democracy in America.
For the whole debacle of the mainstream media boycott, read.... Where the Heck is Ron Paul?
»
- advertisements -
I am no expert in complex systems, but in the recent book "Currency Wars" Jim Rickard's talks about complex systems and how a small percentage of the population can engage in a behavior that triggers the same in a larger group and so on ... he talked about this in terms of a selling panic, but I don't see why it can not apply to electoral politics.
To me the game only works so long as everyone doesn't care or pay attention to RP. But once people start to notice, the suppression inverts and becomes a magnification; you are exactly correct.
I rant non stop about a number of things, and I know my family listens even if I am a little crazy. The more shit that hits the fan, the more street cred I get. I put all the debates up on my blog (small, for family mostly), so those that watch them can put 1 and 1 together.
I am not crazy, I am making uncomfortable sense.
RP is grass roots, from the bottom up in the population, and hes reaching escape velocity.
The MSM is going to have to change their tune soon or they are going to set themselves on fire in terms of any credibility.
I think the false flag has to happen soon, because the momentum is building...
Regards,
Cooter
Oh yes... they will most CERTAINLY change their tune. They will start calling him "Eccentric", they will start calling his supporters "Conspiracy Theorists". They will call him a "Joooooo Hater" and an Isolationist who is weak on defending this country. Heck, they'll even start in with his Ear Marking in bills but they won't tell you that he votes against those bills, nor will they tell you why he votes against them.
Of course, anyone who has listened to the man for more than just the debates will know that there's more behind the story of all these talking points and none of them are true or accurate.
... commence with the Ron Paul bashing from both sides, but probably more from the GOP, sadly..
Sounds like a variant of the Pareto principle. 80% of the effect comes from 20% of the cause. You could also include the concepts of positive feedback loops and the achivement of critical mass.
You know they are gonna attack Ron Paul 24x7. Corzine gets a pass but Paul will be attacked daily. The idea is to load it up with as many NWO/CFR sell outs like Newt, Romney and Perry to take away from Paul and maybe Santorum. The NWO/CFR media then goes on and on about Romney and Newt, The pollsters then lie their asses off. Newt is the f****ing worst.
The media will now begin the process of elevating Dr Paul to Sainthood only to suddenly reveal "hidden" secrets of his personal life.
That whore, Gloria Allred will find another whore to say she's been Dr Pauls Dominatrix over the last thirty years.
Dr Phil will have both on, as will The View, and tsk-tsk over how shamelessly Dr Paul has used and abused her. The capper being that his check bounced back in '83.
The republican party will gleefully pull funding and other support from his campaign, pay off the democratic operatives that were lending a hand, and present the candidate that they both really want to see.
@OldPhart "The republican party will gleefully pull funding and other support from his campaign"
HA! That's a good one! If by funding you mean disparaging and by support you mean back-stabbing.
You have a point, I stand corrected.
Flash!
Sarah Palin reveals: "I had Ron Paul's love child!"
"And it was Lampshade ... er, I mean Carburetor ... I mean, Dishsoap ... er, ... well, you know ... the retarded one anyway! See what Ron Paul did to me!"
You don't sound any more crazy than most of us here. Keep ranting.
I found that once you get past the frustration phase, it gets fun to annoy certain people! Even better when macro predictions come true. That really spooks the sheeple. Fun stuff. Sort of like cow tipping I suppose.
My personal motto:
"It ain't no fun unless you piss somebody off."
Nothing pisses dumb asses who are wrong more than the truth:
Ron Paul IS OUR NEXT PRESIDENT!!
If he is crazy, it is like a fox. The CIA is preparing "White" swans against Paul- if their media can't brand him a racist.
Here it comes:
CIA indictment of Ron Paul, you made these homeland terrorists hate us government types and black people..that is why the division of xxxxxxxxxxx was attacked at the xxxxxxxxxxx. Janet Nap. takes a phat ass I told u so victory lap...
The Horror. the Horror they will engage to stop us with cheap deception.
Blowback, baby! The MSM pretended RP didn't exist. No matter your political leanings, this should piss off every true American. Anyone paying attention should be wondering just what TPTB are so intent on hiding from the minds of the People. My hope has been all along that the attempts to quash RP would backfire.
The MSM is bought and paid for by the giant money-sucking leech that is the military industrial complex: "Let's launch a PR offensive that'll make the gullible masses terrified of those evil brown people so that we can keep stealing trillions from the taxpayers to maintain the offense defense budget."
Iran is a military threat to the U.S.? Possibly to Israel, yes. You gotta be cognitively challenged (P.F.S.) to not see that it is really about the oil and maintaining the Sugar Daddy funding to the M.I. complex.
Time for a xanax and shot of tequila.
+1 for the post
and +1 more for the reminder to take my meds.
Tim Russert of Meet The Press fame was the king of M.I.C. sponsors. I never understood why they would advertise for nuclear attack submarines and fighter jets as if the public was in the market to purchase. But, according to his peers, his career as a talk show/news program host was the epitome of t.v. news journalism. He wasn't so bad in the 80's, but as time went on he was totally in the tank for his corporate sponsors. I guess one could describe him and them as whores?