Topics and Perspectives of a Libertarian Pundit
columnist: Gary Trieste

Topic: Ron Paul
Is the Mainstream Media really trying to bury Ron Paul's Campaign?

---

For all intents and purposes, the newsmedia has imposed a virtual brownout on Ron Paul and his campaign. Who is to blame, is there a conspiracy afoot, and what can be done about it.

---

by Gary Trieste
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, January 30, 2008

So, again, the question arises, what's up with this entrenched Main Stream Media bias against Ron Paul???

To ask "Is it fair", is one thing, but another question that may have teeth, is "is it legal?" is another.

We can see for example, LewRockwell.com had to officially distance themselves from the Center for Libertarian Studies by law, in order to retain non-profit tax deductible status.

The reason? - Because LewRockwell.com is an unabashedly pro-Ron Paul media outlet, and non-profit organizations are not permitted to support any particular candidate, LRC attorneys required them to do this.

A similar concern affectd SpeechNow.org, who got hit with a sanction from the FEC for the supporting of specific candidates

http://tinyurl.com/22pg6w

Although these instances relate to tax deductible status', there is a similar legal touchstone for broadcasting companies and their FCC license charters, namely a requirement that, as a news media outlet serving the public, they are not to support or promote one candidate over another.

And yet, right before our eyes, despite activists across the land crying foul, the mainstream media continues to highlight every GOP proto-candidate at Ron Paul's expense for equal time. The situation is so bad, that we, as Paul supporters, have begun to laugh about it in a bittersweet, resigned fashion,

(e.g. see "Where's Pauldo"

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i29209)

The evidence is obvious, in the public domain, and unabashed. When contacted, these newsmedia outlet essentially fibberbuster, and say nothing of substance to explain it, or they just outright lie.

Some recent examples:

In the MSNBC debates, Romney was asked 13 questions and got 17 minutes of speaking time; McCain 11 questions, 13 minutes; Guiliani 10 questions 11 minutes, and Huckabee, 7 questions and 7 minutes. Ron Paul? 5 questions and 4 minutes to speak.

(This was no debate, but rather a showcase for Romney and McCain.)

Ron Paul was excluded from FoxNews Jan 6 forum in NH.
Ron Paul was excluded from the NY Times' webpage of GOP candidates (even when he exceeded them in polls and convention wins), until Jan 17th, when after en masse complaints, and Thompson's capitulation, they finally put Paul's face on the roster.

A statistical analysis of the following newsmedia websites show that:

Goto www.newsweek.com
Search their site.
As of 1/27/08

Ron Paul: 54 results
Mitt Romney: 264 results
Mike Huckabee: 147 results
John McCain: 765 results
Hillary Clinton: 862 results
Barack Obama: 385 results

Goto www.time.com
Search their site
As of 1/27/08

Ron Paul: 520 results
Mitt Romney: 835 results
Mike Huckabee: 428 results
John McCain: 1,761 results
Hillary Clinton: 2,591 results
Barack Obama: 1,063 results

Goto www.usnews.com
Search their site
As of 1/27/08

Ron Paul: 516 results
Mitt Romney: 7260 results
Mike Huckabee: 6910 results
John McCain: 7360 results
Hillary Clinton: 7450 results
Barack Obama: 6840 results

And these were AFTER Ron Paul gained prominence via his grassroots support and second place GOP state convention wins.

Compounding the inequity, during their "reporting" we see the media run and rerun for free excerpts of these other GOP candidates political commercials - another subsidized boon for non-Paul candidates.

However obvious, proving that this is conspiratorial, or even intentional, bias is a whole other ball of wax. Even if intentional, there could be ethical room for argument that the editors felt Ron Paul was not news.

It could be a concertial (that is, "in concert") exclusion, insofar that each media outlet excludes him for what they think are independent reasons, and they just happen to do it all together due to a common unaffirmed prejudice.

The smoking gun of course that we all suspect is, intentional bias to exclude Ron Paul from national or statewide media due to ideological, political or "orders-from-above" reasons.

These, and the results demonstrable from any analysis of public domain information, would, in a court of law, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the media overwhelmingly underreports anything about Ron Paul.

The driving causes notwithstanding, THAT this is happening should not be a point of debate anymore, it is quite obvious; conceptionally juxtaposed, if the Ron Paul campaign were a protected minority, the media would be charged with civil rights violations.

Ron Paul should raise this point often during interviews and public speeches, then perhaps the MSM would respond, or at least it would put them on notice, and make them more aware that others are aware. This media blackout, in my opinion, is a news item of its own.

(Unfortunately Ron Paul is great on exposition about things that really matter, but no-so-good in coming on strong in response to when he and his campaign are unfairly treated or manipulated. He really needs a little more firebrand in his oratory, beat down his adversaries - which include the media and debate moderators, and let loose positive aggression in getting his message out in a passionate way. IMHO

Someone said to me, Paul has Braveheart's soul . . . in Barney Fife's body; unflattering but something he has to work at.)

So, what can be done about it?? Is it actionable, to the extent that the FCC could send a friendly memo to the news outlets to doublecheck their apportionment of airtime to the candidates? That to exclude a candidate may be as illegal as to promote one, under FEC regulations?

Could be done, but will it? Not likely, as both the FEC and FCC are made up of administrators who implicitly agree with the actions of the mainstream media on this. In fact as noted by DownsizerDispatch:

"The federal government has a special gang it uses to control the right of people to cooperate to express opinions about candidates. It's called the Federal Election Commission -- FEC for short. The FEC is made up of exactly 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. Its members never face a public election. They are appointed by the President, and approved by Congress. The FEC's partisan composition reflects its partisan purpose."

It would appear that the only practicable response is the things that we are doing. Namely grassroots bumper stickers, lawn signs, door-to-door canvassing, Letters to the Editor, publicly placed posters/flyers, websites, a blimp?, and whatever else we can drum up. This is patently unfair, but other than complaints to the respective media, and maybe regulating agencies, it is the best we CAN do.

In this vein, about a week ago, I recently complained to a local public radio moderator that I believed he unfairly omitted Ron Paul from his weekly political commentary program. I felt that even when a number of people had called in and mentioned Paul and requested analysis, he still did not pay any attention.

I subsequently spoke with the moderator, and expressed my consternation with that program, and told him I was particularly primed up to feel that way by the short shrift the national media gave Paul. However, to my surprise, he honestly informed me that it was not his intention to omit Paul, and any omission were purely incidental - in fact mostly caused by his unfamiliarity with Ron Paul. Perhaps this was due the MSM blackout as well.

I was a little skeptical, but the man put his money where his mouth was; in response to my frustration and to show his good faith and true curiousity, he offered to provide a 1 hour exclusive one-on-one interview with Dr. Paul, on the air for his whole audience to listen to.

This radio station is no little internet wannabe station.

Rather it is WAMC out of Albany, NY, and it covers an area spanning 7 Northeastern States (NY, NJ, MA, VT, CT, PA, NH), hundreds of square miles and millions of people, and the offer was made by WAMC's President and CEO, Dr. Alan Chartock.

http://www.wamc.org/station.html

I have contacted Dr. Paul's campaign, and so has Dr. Chartock's office contacted them, all that remains now is for them to accept the offer, which is what we are all waiting for.
The offer still stands and would be most auspicious for Dr. Paul to accept and partake in before Super Tuesday.

An opportunity of this magnitude does not always present itself, and I for one would be very disappointed if it weren't taken advantage of.

(I would also like to accept more plain evidence examples of this MSM Paul blackout and/or media bias, as well as possible questions that Dr. Chartock could ask Dr. Paul)

A thanks to all who have fought the media bias, and achieved what otherwise would be impossible.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
11 thumbs so far

2008 Gary Trieste, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, January 30, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Gary Trieste only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gary Trieste is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Gary Trieste of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.