Fox News Marginalizes Ron Paul

This is surely the voice of frustration--nothing more.

As any serious analyst (surely) realizes, Ron Paul's support runs very deep--but is not very broad. Which is to say, his support is passionate; it is just not very widespread among Republican voters.

That is why Paul is likely to do very well in caucus states, such as Iowa (this August's straw poll may just be a precursor to victory at the Iowa caucus next year); but he is not likely to fare so well in primary states.

He may--may--do decently in "open" primary states, such as my home state of Tennessee. (These are states in which an independent may register, temporarily, as either a Democrat or a Republican, and vote in the corresponding primary.) However, "open" primary states are decidedly in the minority.

In the end, Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination--although he may very well stay in the race for a long time, as his candidacy is (apparently) a matter of principle, rather than a matter of political opportunism...

 

My frustration is not that it's about Ron Paul, per se. It's more in the blatant dishonesty of the media. I would hope that I would be open-minded enough to see it if it were another candidate being treated in such a way. It's obviously become a story in itself, as evidenced by the vids posted here. I think it runs deeper than just frustrated Ron Paul fanatics.

I know it's still early, but all indications are that it may well be Ron Paul's time. Circumstance and popular sentiment may have caught up with him. The media is trying all its tricks, and, failing all else, goes back to the default position that he's 'unelectable'. His early successes must be duly noted or else the perception will stand that he is unelectable come Super Tuesday.

Unfortunately, I live in Mississippi and our primary comes late so we don't get much voice in the choosing of candidates. Ron Paul has won the CPAC poll 2 years in a row, has, by all online polling, dominated the debates and had his recent good showing in Iowa. Seems like his support is as broad as could be gauged at this point. That's what makes the media treatment of him so maddening.

Here's a quote that this situation kind of reminds me of. May be a caution for non-Paul supporters and their collective yawn at the marginalization of Ron Paul.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

~Martin Niemoller

Injustice is injustice, no matter the victim. I hope all remember that.

 

Ron Paul could easily win it if it weren't for the media.

 

It's a shame isn't it? They say you get the government you deserve...

But maybe you get the government the media allows you to get?

 

Yup, we have several threads on this, but what's one more. Flood this forum with Ron paul content. And flood your friends inboxes and Facebook with Ron Paul content. Get his name out there. Fight back against the tyrants.

 

The title of that thread leads me to believe it covers different content. Thanks for the link anyhow!

 

I disagree.

The mere fact that he won the Iowa straw poll does not demonstrate that his support is "broad"; just that it is passionate.

And if he has "dominated" the debates (which is difficult to prove, objectively), it probably has more to do with the fact that he is a principled person; and has, therefore, not flip-flopped on the issues, as a matter of political convenience.

Again, that does not demonstrate "broad" support.

 

Note that I said 'broad as could be gauged at this point'. What more do you expect from a candidate at this early stage?

A new wrinkle developing is that black Democrats are showing signs of being ready to abandon Obama. Ron Paul could well be the beneficiary of this disaffection as he, like you said, is the more 'principled' candidate. He does not carry the typical Republican baggage and this may serve him well.

 

pjohns,
The media has made a practice of excluding Paul during campaigns, and it's just now beginning to lift. His ability to garner broad support was hindered by the media by denying him a broad audience.
Your complaint about his lack of broad support is unfair. How can he *gain* broad support when he's excluded from polls, debates, and news coverage?
Who's to say how much support he can garner if he's actually given a fair shake? A huge majority of Americans have voiced opinions that align with his in subject polling. From a balanced budget amendment to less government/ taxes to the Patriot Act to interventionist foreign policy to auditing the FED, he's right there in the mainstream.
Personally, I don't think that he's electable either. I just think he's right. And FWIW he's #3 in polling going into New Hampshire, and that ain't exactly bad.

Time will tell whether the general public regards him as a "kook" or as the only guy in the race that actually says what they've been thinking.

 

What does that mean, exactly?

And by what objective measurement would you declare that support to be "broad"?

 

Indeed they do.
And some of their anchors can barely bring themselves to discuss or interview Paul or Johnson.
Johnson is infinitely more electable in the general election, and gets even less air time than Paul.

 

Not sure what you're trying to prove by being deliberately dense. I think we all know what has occurred in the campaign to this point and how Ron Paul is doing.

Again...note the qualifier "as could be gauged at this point" that I used. See #2 below.

qual·i·fi·er
n.
1. One that qualifies, especially one that has or fulfills all appropriate qualifications, as for a position, office, or task.
2. Grammar... A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of another word or phrase.

 

Johnson did not reach the media imposed threshold of support. He's another victim of the media bias towards their own perceived favorites. Participation in one debate shouldn't make or break any candidate. They also influence public perception by the format and questions asked/not asked in the debates.

The last scheduled debate is on Oct. 11, 2011. The first real voting doesn't come until February 6, 2012 in the Iowa Caucus. That's roughly 4 months that the media has in which to sway public perception in any manner they choose, with no further debating among candidates. Not exactly a system geared to fairness IMO.

 

Hell, Paul hasn't reached that imposed threshold either! No one but his constituency respects him.

Having some experience working with 3rd party candidates, I can affirm that the system is completely skewed towards the two-party system.

And the parties hold the purse-strings.

 

The mere fact that you did not explain yourself adequately is hardly evidence that you auditor is being "dense," for being unable to read your mind.

The pedantry is quite unnecessary, sir.

And not especially impressive, either...

 

The bolded text kind of explains HOW the media marginalizes a candidate, which can alter public opinion and lead to exclusion from debates....in other words, shaping a story to promote their favored candidates. Remember that Ron Paul was excluded from at least 1 debate that I recall in the 2008 campaign.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Despite his army of grassroots supporters and a strong finish in the Iowa straw poll, the media are ignoring the "Ron Paul Revolution," the presidential hopeful says - and a new study suggests he may be right.

Nine of the twelve potential presidents surveyed attracted more media attention this year than Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a study from the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellency in Journalism found.

Paul has been the lead subject of only 27 campaign stories* between January 1 and August 14, according to Pew's research. That's less than a quarter of the coverage former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has attracted, and a small fraction of the 221 stories written about President Obama's reelection campaign.

Paul beat out former Senator Rick Santorum and businessman Herman Cain in amount of media coverage he generated, but Donald Trump, who dropped out of the race, and Sarah Palin, who has not announced her intentions, both outpaced him. Stories about former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's limping campaign also blew past the amount of Paul coverage.

"It disturbs me," Paul said on FOX News Tuesday when asked about his meager play in the press. "I have done quite well. I'm quite willing to match my name up against Obama any time of the day."

It's a frustration Paul has voiced frequently since finishing a close second in the Iowa straw poll a week ago. Though Paul's showing in national polls has been less than stellar, the outspoken libertarian has a powerful grassroots fundraising operation, a flock of engaged supporters, and a good showing in local straw polls.

"We showed we did well in Iowa, and we have good organization, and we can raise money," he said. "But they don't want to discuss my views, because I think they are frightened by us challenging the status quo and the establishment."

Paul, a three-time veteran of the presidential campaign trail, says that voters eventually will discover that the more covered-candidates are just interested in maintaining the "status quo" - and media attention will taper off.

"There's many that have entered this race, you know, over the past year," he said when asked about the popularity of Texas Governor Rick Perry on FOX News Friday morning. "They come for a few months or so and then they leave, and they get a lot of publicity."

Officially entering the race less than a week ago, Perry edged out his fellow Texan in the Pew study, attracting 33 stories. Paul officially announced his candidacy in May.

*Pew considers a candidate to be a "dominant newsmaker" in an article when they are featured in at least 50 percent of the story. Articles written between January 1 - August 14 were taken into account.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2...edia-ignores-paul-study-finds?test=latestnews

 

It's not just Fox News, although they play a part.

It's CNN, MSNBC and all the rest of them. No one wants to report the truth.

They all want to report on their own 'narrative' of what's happening.