Topic: Media
When The Media Grew Ears: PBS Is it all about celebrity, money, and the horserace, or is it theoretically possible for the media to occasionally let a few revolutionary ideas slip through the shallow mist of their news coverage?by William Westmiller
(libertarian)
Saturday, December 15, 2007
In spite of a very professional attempt to evade ideas and present a "balanced" report on a novel campaign, PBS accidentally allowed their viewers a little bit of information in a NOW feature on the "Ron Paul Phenomenon" [December 14]. Well, it was called that, but calling this rEVOLutionary campaign a "phenomenon" smacked of bias. Reports have to be balanced, so the producers had to make sure that two liberal Democrats were allowed just as much time as Ron Paul. Maybe PBS aims to be the new "fair and balanced" media outlet.
Nevertheless, an inkling of what the Paul campaign is all about did seep through. Probably an oversight. Of the entire 14-minute segment, there was a fascinating event. Senior NOW Correspondent Maria Inohosa asked a question. Paul answered. The astounding observation from Maria: "Until now, Ron Paul has never said publicly that he doesn't want contributions from white supremacists." In the course of six months of slanders against Paul for the ethical deficiencies of a few reporters, nobody had ever asked him that simple question. Answers just make news reports boring.
Aside from the primary segment, PBS at least provides an "extended interview" video on its website. If you believe that the entire interview with Paul ended after 6-minutes, I guess it qualifies as "extended" coverage. There are brief, but interesting, segments in the main piece with Trevor Lyman, the promoter who created the "money bombs" and the Ron Paul blimp. Maria could not understand why he would make such an effort for a Texas gynecologist he had never heard of before last June. "It's not about Ron Paul," said Trevor, "It's about this message, it's about this idea of returning to the principles of America." We never learn very much about those principles, but we do discover what they cut out of the main segment. In the extended interview, Paul says: "I never think about it as me being the issue, as much as the philosophy being the issue. I want to deliver a message. I've been able to achieve that." But, not here!
What we get is a Democratic Political Science Professor from Columbia, explaining that "the idea that government that isn't done on the national level will be done more locally, that's one of the libertarian creeds." Which, as any libertarian knows, is exactly wrong. But, David L. Epstein is an authority, and our totally objective reporter explains that Paul just doesn't understand Epstein's view that "the role of the federal government has been to help level the playing field." Just to be really fair, Paul doesn't get to comment on Epstein's ideas.What PBS finds most enchanting is the fact that Paul had little or nothing to do with the major organizational and promotional events that have earned him such wide internet attention. To help us understand what's happening, Marie asks ... no, not Ron Paul ... but the On-Line Organizer of the failed Howard Dean campaign. Zephyr Teachout explains that it's not the man, not the message, it's the "distributed power" of the internet, "far more intoxicating and exciting kind of distribution to be a part of." All process, no content.
Content still seeps through the fog, with some short, but cogent comments from Paul and a few of his "intoxicated" supporters. But, if a serious voter is actually looking for information on PBS, they'd do better with Judy Woodruff's NewsHour interview of Ron Paul last month. Shallow questions, but a good deal of information on what the Ron Paul phenomenon is really all about, direct from the candidate's lips. We can't get that in a NOW presentation from a reporter with no ears.
PS: The website presentation provides more information in a sidebar: a 2002 interview of Paul by Bill Moyers (yes, the last time PBS talked to any libertarian was five years ago) and a fun little popup analysis piece with cute quips from two more liberals, Arianna Huffington and Andrew Sullivan. They don't mention Ron Paul once. And neither of them have ears.
Update: Moyers was civil and attentive in a new interview with Ron Paul on January 4th.
The views expressed in this
article are those of William Westmiller only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. William Westmiller 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.
Have you ever seen any of the "major" candidates express a position and then have an "expert" brought in to discredit that position? No you haven't, and neither have I.
The old media are shaking in their boots! The bankers and the military industrial complex must really be putting on the pressure. Makes me wonder what they are threatening to do to these people if they give Ron Paul a fair shake.
Thank God for the new media.
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.
Aside from the primary segment, PBS at least provides an "extended interview"