This is so sad v.MediaBlackout

[Ardentfrost]

I would love RP to get the attention from the MSM that Huckabee got and pull out all the skeletons they can find. I don't know of any, but if I'm going to continue throwing money his way and supporting him, I want to know what they can find.

You know?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

hey that is how the free market works and I would think Ron Paul would agree. MSNBC shouldn't be forced to show RP on TV

Yeah, a privately owned television station only needs to be concerned with making money for its share holders, accuracy, letting people know about specific candidates, etc, can all fall by the wayside.. we talked about that in another thread

[lew]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

hey that is how the free market works and I would think Ron Paul would agree. MSNBC shouldn't be forced to show RP on TV

No one is saying that government should force MSNBC to cover Paul.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by lew

No one is saying that government should force MSNBC to cover Paul.

Certainly not

[avsp]

although this instance remains unclear i cant believe we're discussing this

we've already all seen several instances of media bias agin him, where other '2nd tier' ppl where mentioned but he wasnt

there was the report of post-debate self-starter voteing polls where RP was not included in reports, then when the fan-boys made a fuss on the net RP was edited into the reports, then once the fan-boys went 'oh great we have won' he was then largely edited back out.

its clear there has been instances of a freeze.

As for 'dirt'. theres all the stuff about his choice of newsletter title & a racist articles in one such. Personally I find the way he shifts in his seat when discussing these sorts of issues, (race, sexuality etc), a bit dodgy, even tho', for once, I agree with his words, ..., mostly

If he gets much more mainstream as the others shrink under the limelight then I predict a sh*tstorm of accusation, denial, counter-rebuttal & insinuation that may very well overload the interweb's pipes & pumps

[lew]

Matt Simon: Ron Paul and John Stossel: Too Hot for TV? - Off The Bus on The Huffington Post

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?

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by lew

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?

They are afraid that We The People will discover the Truth that Ron Paul represents!

Fed Up