Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul and the Media Bias An in depth look at the nature of the mainstream media, and why they would wish to censor Ron Paulby The Arkitekt
(libertarian)
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Chances are good that those of you who are reading this have been paying attention to the brewing race for the 2008 presidential election. If we also take into account those who have not been paying attention, we can effectively separate the population of the United States into three disparate camps: Those who love to hear, those who are sick of hearing, and those who have never heard – of Ron Paul.
It can be said that this is perfectly normal, given the election is still, at the time of writing, barely under a year away. Consider, though, that the primaries begin in merely 50 days or so, and that this election cycle has been gaining steam for months now, and the argument falls apart. It can also be said that due to his low scores in the polls, Ron Paul simply is getting the amount of coverage that should be expected for a middle-bottom tier candidate. All other refutations to this point aside, from his performance in straw polls and post-debate polls to his vast support on the internet, nothing more need be said than "money bomb." On November 5th, but we Paul-istinians (my favorite dirty name for his supporters) proved to the country what we had known all along; Ron Paul has long had first tier support.
The simple fact of the matter is, though, apart from that rarest of species, the non-Paul-supporting internet user, nobody else had a clue that all of those people were partaking in his – he calls it our – revolution. This begs a serious question: why, during a race in which the favorite candidates have been household names for months, is there such a large portion of the population which has simply never heard of Doctor Ronald Ernest Paul, Republican Representative, Texas?
As we have already established, those reading this have most likely been paying active attention, and therefore have also probably heard rumblings of a general media bias against Dr. Paul. I cannot speak for the truth of this as per print, for, like so many of my peers, I have not held one of those archaic "news paper" devices for some time. Radio outlets are wide and varied, so again I cannot speak to that which I have no option to hear; I refused to drive around the country with my car radio on as part of the research for this piece. Suffice to say, though, that the big name conservative talk show hosts all seem to have reserved their love for some variation of Rudy McRomneyson. The internet, though seemingly dominated by Paul supporters, is such a huge venue that while biases among certain outlets on the internet certainly do exist, there is a forum for literally any idea one might wish to pursue. Don't believe me? Try googling "2," "girls," "1," and "cup" and see what comes up. Go ahead, I can wait. Now that we have that out of our system, lets take a look at the end-all be-all of the current journalistic forum, the mainstream media (MSM) god, television.
To understand any motives the MSM may have, and thus to be able to decide if they really are conducting a brown-out of Dr. Paul, one must first examine exactly what the MSM outlets are. The news media corporations, while able to draw their roots to the earliest stages of our country, are not organizations devoted to the dissemination of truth and objectivity. Our modern MSM outlets are entities devoted to profit, to be gained by representation of selective facts, along with analyses of said facts conducted in a manner which best appeals to their, and their advertisers, target audiences. There really is nothing fundamentally wrong with this. The profit motive involved provides for competition within the market, and competition between providers is the best way for consumers to have inexpensive, high-quality products. If there is any fault with the aforementioned profit motive within the MSM, it lies most closely with exactly what it is that the average consumer desires from their news.
The important lesson, though, is that the MSM syndicates want to make money, and will not present anything which they feel will not appeal to their customers. The reason why many of the MSM stations seem to have chosen favorite candidates is because their target audience already has. The stations aren't dumb. Most of them compete for overlapping audiences, and they have all done comprehensive research and studies into exactly what those audiences want to hear.
It could be argued that were this profit motive truly guiding the MSM, they would simply provide their audiences with whatever distorted analyses they desired, disconnected from any facts which might not fit into it. Again, this is countered by competition. Due to the interactive environment of the news media, with each provider vying for similar viewers, each must strive to be seen as the "best" source. Were any of the MSM outlets to ignore reality entirely, it would give ammunition to their competitors to attack them, lessening their prestige, and thus, viewer base.
Of course, given Dr. Paul's popularity in the only de-centrally controlled media venue, the internet, some more questions must be raised. Namely, if the MSM is solely profit motivated, and they must compete over a limited amount of viewers, and thus advertisers attempting to reach them, wouldn't one of them "pick up" Ron Paul and his teeming masses? The question is extremely appropriate, and cannot be satisfactorily answered given the understanding of the MSM as it stands thus far in this piece. The reason for this is that there is another aspect to the companies which give us our news. They are also the singularly most powerful special interest group in existence. They have access to the political world of the United States through two means. First is the traditional method of simply throwing money at politicians in Washington, and secondly, and uniquely to them, the MSM has direct access the voting public, and extensive control over how that public perceives the political world. Because of this access to the public, they also enjoy the attentions of every other special interest group in existence. This is their power, and they use it.
To understand why the MSM as a special interest group would be violently averse to Ron Paul – and they are – one must examine what changes Dr. Paul would bring to our political landscape. This is actually quite simple, for while the changes he would bring are widespread, the motives behind the special interest groups' reactions to them are uniform. Ron Paul would end our military involvement over seas. Ron Paul would secure our borders. Ron Paul would, through a series of reforms, end government handouts of taxpayer dollars and end government interference impeding free markets. Now imagine how much money many companies, from Halliburton to Blackwater to Lockheed-Martin, stand to lose if we end our obsession with using our military globally. Imagine how much money some groups stand to lose, both by ending the stream of illegal labor and stemming the rampant drug markets, if we secure our borders. Imagine how much money the agriculture industry, the auto industry, and all the other mendicants stand to lose if their huge tax-payer funded government subsidies disappear, or if the quotas and tariffs which shelter them are removed. Imagine how much of this money currently being made, how many tens of billions of dollars, finds its way to the MSM in the effort to control you and me, and thus currying favor among politicians. Now you begin to understand what the MSM stands to lose if our champion, Dr. Paul, is elected to the office of President of the United States of America. It seems it was the profit motive after all dictating the actions of the MSM outlets, only we had yet to see the big picture.
It is with all of this very much in mind that those who are centrally in control of our syndicated, constitutionally protected news corporations have resisted Dr. Paul with all of their considerable might. They could never deny his existence completely, though they tried, but they could attempt to marginalize him, and have, again, tried. Thanks to the efforts of 38,905 individuals on the fifth of November, 2007, and thanks to the efforts of everyone around the nation who has heralded the message of liberty and freedom, Dr. Paul is now beyond suppression. In fact, many in the media, who are unable to further ignore or marginalize him, have begun to embrace him. The embrace may be tentative still on the part of most, but the simple fact of serious recognition is a harbinger of things to come. After the full effects of Money Bomb 2.0 have been seen next December 16th, on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the true course of the future might become visible, and it will be then that we shall see how the mainstream media failed to censor Ron Paul.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 98 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of The Arkitekt only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. The Arkitekt 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.
Perhaps we need to start a massive letter writing campaign to the net works. (The old fashioned kind that isn't easy to delete at the push of a button. Truck loads of mail that has to be dealt with.
Buy time on Home Shopping network or infomercials. Inexpenxive but there is a canidate that has a horable record and poor comic that has used it over the liberals in the party..
Posted By: Jason Stanley
Date: 2007-12-08 21:53:40
I totally agree with you, my fear is the media will find an event to exploit on the date of the 16th and 17th to have a excuss not to devote airtime to the Ron Paul campaign which it rightfully deserves.
No need for this long winded article. It is patently obvious why MSM is not in favor of RP (to put it mildly) - he is against everything the corrupt establishement stands for. Money rules the world, not truth and justice. No matter how much people like RP, that is why his chances are really slim.
For those of you not into movies or too young to remember, take a look at Sidney Lumet's magnificent "Network". Over 30 years old, still as powerful as ever.
I agree with Leanne completely ...make it snow on the networks & in Washington as well!!
Also remember the tea bag mailing to begin Dec. 10th leading up to the tea party on the 16th. Packages of tea bags (nothing else - no notes etc.)with return address (law requires that they are openned/recieved)to members of the executive & legislative branches as well as the federal reserve.
Regardless.. this is a movement. Its not slowing down or losing steam. Im proud to be involved and will continue to be involved long after this election. I have Dr. Paul to thank for waking me from the American dream long enough to realize what it truly is. Ive never been prouder to be an American. I know Im fighting for the right cause. Whenever Im dogged for not supporting the war, I answer very simply. If Ron Paul called our country to duty, I would go willingly and bring my own gun, food and tent.
All I have to say is, "Fuck you!" I Googled that, and am pissed. Just be glad I'm not bothering to read your name, because I don't want to read your name and have an association with that video if I see your writing again. Just know, that if I wasn't as scared as I am, I would kick your ass.
As you point out, a lot of money will be lost by specific entities. That money will be gained by individual citizens (voters) with the added benefit that they get to choose how they waht to use it. Currently money is collected, at the point of a gun, sent to Washington and a small fraction of it returned with strings attached. If the average American Voter wised up to this Paul would have a unstoppable landslide.
Even once he becomes President, Dr. Paul will continue to be harrassed and undermined by the MSM. There is one, and only one, solution to the media "problem" ... we need to create or obtain our OWN media outlets.
I have spent the last week or so looking into radio and TV stations for sale, and spoken to some brokers about how the "system" works. It IS possible to make this happen fairly quickly. A plan as simple as getting 500,000 people to commit to donating $20/month would allow us to purchase one or two media outlets a month and turn the profits from those back into additional purchases.
Since anti-broadcast monopolies were quietly removed a few years ago, it is possible for US to become a monopoly as well. The knife cuts both ways.
For those of you interested in this, send an email to NoMoreMSM@gmail.com .
Sorry to be blunt, but if the American people see the likes of Rudy or Hilly as a promise for the future and a solution to our problems, they're plain dumb and don't deserve any better.
Or is it that anyone in politics that makes sense is too unreal to be (for) real? Ron Paul is the first in decades who gave me some hope that we're not a nation of losers.
There are 210+m internet users and 90m non-users in the US, and a third of each add up to the 100m votes landslide that will neatly place Ron Paul in the White House.
We need to act now to prevent MSM from getting worse. Go to this petition site to prevent the FCC from doing even more damage. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/659309295?z00m=11868620 ...FCC director Martin got his positition by working on Bushes campaigne.
"If there is any fault with the aforementioned profit motive within the MSM, it lies most closely with exactly what it is that the average consumer desires from their news."
No, it does not. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the corporate media. It does not deliver what "consumers desire from their news." It manufactures desire and dictates what that news is. It does this, not through "competition," but through a lack of competition. To even suggest that there is a competitive free market in the media is absurd. The media are controlled by an oligopoly of eight corporations, which have ties to almost every other industry. The media corps make money from a spectrum of advertisers, who in turn benefit from the "news" as it is presented by the media. As Project Censored has noted, executives of major defense contractors like Boeing, Lockheed and Raytheon sit on the boards of directors of many major media outlets, including the New York Times, Gannet etc. Major defense contractor General Electric owns NBC.
The media today are simply an armature of corporate America, tied to their interests and not those of the American public. The media landscape is not a free market and to even suggest that coverage of events is driven by "consumer" demand is ridiculous. Political coverage is nothing more than advertising, and corporations spend $250 billion a year on advertising for one reason: it works.
I just watched the news tonight in LA (Mexifornia), about the Nedava results, on KTLA they DID NOT EVEN MENTION ron paul 2nd place, they showed copious footage of Obama and Billary instead, and show the 3rd one, on NBC they mentioned him but only for 2seconds
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
