Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul: Fair and Balanced Insulted, misrepresented, belittled, ignored, excluded, and ridiculed. All parts of the messy issue of free speech, honesty, and uncivil dialogue.by William Westmiller
(libertarian)
Monday, December 31, 2007
The prolific obfuscation regarding a Fox News "debate" will eventually be resolved. [Update: still no final word on Ron Paul’s participation.] However, it presents some important issues that need to be aired.
For those who missed the story, Fox News and the New Hampshire GOP had been engaged in discussions about holding a Republican Presidential Debate. Those plans were abandoned when ABC and WMUR committed to a broadcast debate one day prior to the Fox proposal. In light of that situation, Fox News felt that it needed some visibility just prior to the January 8thprimary. They decided to host a "round table discussion" in a closed studio with a few of the candidates (presumably as a supplement to Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sundayprogram). They sent out invitations to those that they considered leading contenders (double digits in the polls), which did not include Ron Paul. That upset Paul supporters and his campaign, which continues its efforts to gain his admission.
This event is not a "debate", nor even a "forum", which implies a public event with the direct engagement of the Republican Party in a legitimate effort to inform their members and voters of New Hampshire. Even if the NHGOP had facilitated arrangements, as it has done for many media outlets, the intended broadcast is a private event. Which presents a bit of a conundrum for Ron Paul and his supporters (I count myself among them).
As a defender of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, Paul believes that every individual (and every private corporation) has a right to use their own resources to express their own views: even if it lies, deceives, misrepresents, and distorts the facts for its own purposes. As a libertarian, he has no interest in coercing anyone to present contrary views and he opposes all legal interventions, including the "fairness doctrine." In a free and open society, where there are no banned words, the truth will eventually emerge.
Of course, that position doesn’t preclude anyone from attempting to use persuasion; to encourage those with communication resources to present alternative or contrary views. That is what Paul and his campaign have done: attempt to persuade Fox that Ron ought to be included in their broadcast. Whatever their decision, Paul will accept it … even if he disputes the wisdom of that decision.
Fox News can do as it pleases and everyone has the option of viewing their broadcasts or not. My only objection to Fox is that they are dishonest. They are, in my opinion, unwilling to state their biases, prejudice, and political objectives. To be kind, Rupert Murdoch saw a market for a news outlet that offset what he saw as a liberal bias in broadcast journalism. Fair enough. What is disingenuous is the marketing claim that Fox would be "Fair and Balanced" in their coverage. They aren’t balanced and they only barely pretend to be fair. Their objective is to offset their perceived slant of the mainstream media – counter-balancing it - by offering and promoting their own opposing view. The facts that interest them are those that contradict those alternative viewpoints. In my words, they don’t intend to be fair or balanced in their own presentation of the news, but rather to counter what they consider an unfair and unbalanced general marketplace of news and ideas. That objective isn’t bad, but being dishonest about it is.
What is evident to anyone who watches Fox News is that they are slavish and unapologetic advocates for the George Bush view of the nation and the world. Although Roger Ailes and friends pretend to be conservatives, they equate almost every Bush position with conservatism, even if they occasionally mumble about the most extreme un-conservative policies and actions of the administration. It is their duty, as they see it, to "carry water," for every Bush position, even after Rush Limbaugh has abandoned that task. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, in my view, if it is done honestly.
As with any news organization, Fox wants their viewers to be confident that they are a credible source for accurate information. Therefore, a decision to blatantly oppose any particular candidate puts their marketability in jeopardy. They are put in a position of saying that they will not present any candidate who opposes George Bush on a wide range of issues … their viewers be damned. For months, Fox has assiduously avoided mentioning Ron Paul, has scoffed at the enthusiasm of his supporters, barely mentioned his achievements, and attempted to "write him off" as a quixotic kook who has no chance to win any contest [See my comments on "can’t win".]
Given those marketing interests, it seems to me unlikely that Fox will make any final determination on the participation of Ron Paul in their broadcast roundtable event until after the Iowa primaries. If Ron Paul doesn’t get a "ticket" (third or better), they will have grounds for denying him a seat at their table. The problem is that they would have to exclude every other candidate below the top three finishers. It will be very hard for them to maintain any credibility if they apply different standards to different candidates. Almost daily, they hope and pray, without apologies, that John McCain or Fred Thompson (Bush friends) will do well enough to be considered viable in New Hampshire and beyond. If Fox includes them, and excludes Paul, their viewers will see that they have no interest in being "fair and balanced."
Ron Paul supporters have a similar problem. Given their devotion to a candidate who defends Fox’s right to be wrong, what is the proper response if Paul is excluded? Certainly, they have every right to condemn that decision, proclaim it, protest it, and use whatever resources are at their command (with help from other media). However, there are limits. Intentionally swamping Fox email or web services, harassing advertisers, or any kind of malicious ad-hominem attacks are not in keeping with the demeanor and principles of their hero.
The best response is to simply prove Fox wrong. Commit to Ron Paul’s success, which would be a public rebuke and embarrassment for Fox’s dishonest manipulation, unfair, and unbalanced credo. When their viewers realize that they have been denied information on a serious, credible, and viable candidate, they will look elsewhere for honest news coverage. Fox doesn’t need to be destroyed, just humbled.
...
Update1: James Joyner at Outside The Beltway says "it’s hard to justify keeping him out"; Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo says "Yep, It's an Outrage"; Digbys Blog says "The Republicans don't like what Paul is saying and they told their boy Ailes to shut him down. They aren't even trying to hide it."; Debra at Big Brass Blog says "He is well known enough that he should be allowed to participate in the debates because he does raise points that need to be discussed out in the open. But this is Fox, what the heck was I thinking?"; and even Paul critics like Damien Penny says "You know my feelings about Ron Paul's rabid supporters, but this time, I think they have a point."
...
Update2: After a week of virtual silence and artful dodging, NHGOP Chairman Fergus Cullen has released a clear statement:
"The New Hampshire Republican Party believes Congressmen Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter should be included in the FOX forum on Sunday evening. Our mutual efforts to resolve this difference have failed. While we understand that FOX News continues to move forward it is with regret, the New Hampshire Republican Party hereby withdraws as a partner in this forum."
"We look forward to presenting a substantive forum which will serve as the first program of its kind this election season"
Update3: Manchester, NH station MCAM-TV will be broadcasting a live Ron Paul one-hour townhall meeting concurrent with the Fox broadcast, simulcast on the web.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 154 thumbs so far
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.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-31 17:31:56
I spoke with a low-level staffer for the Ron Paul 2008 campaign at a local meetup meeting on Sunday. He said he didn't know what the truth is regarding this whole, crazy situation. He's just as confused as everyone else is. Apparently, there's a lot of miscommunication going on.
I completely disagree with your conclusion. While Fox and their corporate sponsors are free to use their money and clout to push their neocon agenda; Ron Paul supporters are just as free to use their money and clout to push theirs.
Letting Fox's corporate sponsors know you will be boycotting their products and services for supporting Fox News isn't harrassment; it's voting with your pocketbook and it's as American as Apple Pie.
Good article. But I don't see how swamping Fox with protest e-mails or threatening sponcers with boycotts as having any conflict with libertarianism or Ron Paul's ideals. I am an individual and I answer only for myself. If I choose to send a letter of protest, or choose not to buy a particular product, that is my right, isn't it?
Anyway, you have most of this right. Happy New Year and keep up the good work.
Posted By: Louis Nardozi
Date: 2007-12-31 18:11:51
Some people may be unaware that FOX does not OWN the airways - they LEASE them from the American PUBLIC. Every single FOX affiliate station MUST operate IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST or their license to broadcast will be REVOKED. You can send a letter to your LOCAL FOX affiliate and ask that it be included in their public file. WHENEVER you feel FOX engaged in outrageous bias in reporting news, I encourage you to write a letter. They MUST keep it in their public file UNTIL it is investigated.
With all due respect, I have been watching Fox for a long time. I am now waking up to the fact that they are fearmongering in order to keep the sheep in line, voting in a manner in which they decide. By ignoring and ridiculing my chosen candidate they have also slighted me. I have been a republican for 16 years now and have towed the line. Now that I see clearly the waste of men and resources sponsored by the current administration as well as espoused by the fox network, for me at least, the Gig is up. I do have a valid recourse to them and it is this..... If fox or thier sponsors want my business they can start covering the candidate of my choice. And if they dont want to do that I have the right to take my money elsewhere AND to let them know Im doing exactly that. I WILL boycott Fox and thier sponsors until the time comes that they pull thier collective heads out of thier Anuses and realize that there is more than one kind of republican out there.
Thanks for listening,
Aaron, also known as one pissed off FISCAL Conservative.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2007-12-31 18:41:16
There is nothing wrong with peacefully sending in your complaints to Fox News. If this results in swamped servers, well then, there must be some kind of outcry out there in America!
The last commenter is right. Although a privately owned enterprise, Fox is granted a "public" license.
There is nothing wrong with complaining that the public airwaves are being used for personal agendas, vendettas etc...
I prefer the Truth Or Consequence line of reasoning...
Posted By: Youssif H. Shanshiry
Date: 2007-12-31 18:41:18
Shame on the Republican Committee of New Hampshire if it allows this Fox charade of excluding Ron Paul from the upcoming NH candidates’ forum/debate.
Indeed, any candidate who takes part in this attempt to control the American people’s right to freely elect their President betrays their Freedom of choice.
Candidates who accepts to participate if Ron Paul is excluded will prove themselves selfish, unprincipled, opportunistic, undemocratic and unworthy of our trust.
Fox News is scared, I'm not sure why, but they are. And it seems like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are as well. There is an opportunity for the New World Order to be overturned and for sovereignty to be given back into the hands of the people. I think that much of what Ron Paul stands for is the truth. Fox News should be scared not to allow Ron Paul in the debates. For some reason, the truth always stands in the end. It may be a thousand years from now, but at the end the truth will be standing on top of all the lies that tried to usurp it. If Fox News tries to hide the truth, it will fall, especially as a news organization, and one whose slogan is 'fair and balanced.' Fox News should include Ron Paul in there debates.
I believe the Bible. In it Jesus says, "the truth will set you free". The Truth will triumph.
Posted By: Youssif H. Shanshiry
Date: 2007-12-31 23:28:48
It seems to me that all TV networks received their marching orders to suppress the Ron Paul message and silence his voice. They pushed us into a couple of unjust wars and do not need a Ron Paul to keep reminding them of the blood on their hands and corporate profits.Therefore, as of today, all the three major networks, ABC, NBC and CBS as well as the Cable networks CNN, MSNBC, FOX etc, will exert maximum effort to muzzle the Ron Paul message of Peace, avoid showing his picture or even mention his name.It is a disgrace that the GOP allows the humiliating charade of debates that exclude one of their own, Ron Paul or any other candidate.Indeed, any candidate who takes part in such attempts to control the American people’s right to freely elect their President betrays their Freedom of choice.Candidates who accepts to participate in such exclusionary debates will prove themselves selfish, un-principled, opportunistic, un-democratic, un-American and consequently unworthy of our trust.
I contend that media heads are grossly underestimating the scope of the grass-roots support Dr. Paul enjoys. Everywhere I go I see Ron Paul signs, only Ron Paul and mostly home made at that. He is the most talked about name I hear anymore.
My friend is a publisher for ROKON magazine in Seoul Korea, he tells me that he thought Paul was the only one running, and that the American soldiers were requesting articles about him. I was playing an online video game with a gentleman in Pakistan last night. He was locked in his house because of the rioting outside his home. He was asking me if I knew who Ron Paul was, in fat I did. He went on to tell me that he is the focus of many a conversation lately. They see Ron Paul as a humanitarian, and I think he's right.
Coming from a large military family, a US Army Veteran myself, I am only hearing two names, Hero John McCain and Patriot Ron Paul, and the conversations seem to favor Ron Paul. With my work as an Engineer, I travel frequently. In the technology sector circles, every single political conversation I have heard included Ron Paul. Not that they all favored Dr. Paul, but more he was the gage against which the issues were debated.
I would wager that more teenagers know of Ron Paul, than George Washington. He has received donations from more individual voters, than all the other republican candidates combined in Q4. That's why I predict Ron Paul will place third or better in Iowa, and first place in New Hampshire.
Authentic, humble and honest, Dr. Paul stands out as an intellectual giant amongst his status-quo peers, is now the Rock Star celebrity of American politics, do in part the the obvious bias against him in the media. We American's love underdogs, and that will be weighing heavily in Dr. Paul's favor come election day. It has become so popular to donate to Ron Paul, it's like he is putting on a rock concert, and the tickets are selling out, -Fast!
Consider if political campaigns were businesses making an IPO, Paul's campaign would be the darling of Wall Street. His quarter over quarter revenue growth curve is unmatched, and with 225,000 separate donations coming in the last quarter alone, it's potential is off the charts!
Hedge your bets gentleman, expect the unexpected from Patriot Ron Paul, I certainly do.
It's a media event -- use whatever B.S. term (debate, forum, etc.) you want. By excluding Paul, Fox reveals themselves for the ******************** they are. May all involved in this desecration of democracy rot in Hell.
Maybe FOX thinks they know what conservatives want for president, funny how I see RP signs going up around my town in Maryland, like he's the choice here for president. I think maybe these people at FOX are shortsighted and this may actually backfire especially if RP wins Iowa, Imagine that! Even if he finished third it would marginalize their POV on the MSM scene. Wow, to think they might marginalize themselves maybe almost poetic. Fox will then become followers maybe they like being the attack dog for Limbaugh and Bush, but neither of those characters have uttered a conservative thought in years, let alone really presented multi-sided perspectives. Their belief system might be more similar to a Catholic Church heirachy, maybe RP doesn't need that kind of endorsement anyways, maybe they just don't get it anymore. THat would be FOX's loss, not RP's.
The first thing we the people have to do is to openly admit that our news media is no longer the guardians of the public trust. Domestic news media sources are now nothing more than propaganda machines, each competing in the national lying contest.
The Main Scream Media today is, in truth, nothing more than a storefront for the large corporation/syndicate. Similarly, information has now become a commodity that is completely unregulated for purity. There is no oversight except by the consumer.
Buyer beware!
The beauty for the corporate BS artists is that ‘we the people’ are easily subdivided and led down the garden path by partisan politics. While the red and blue voters are doing battle, the government and media sit back and enjoy the show.
Unless we form some kind of coalition to stand against our unholy masters, things will not change or get better.
Can we not agree to disagree on some things but then also stand together to demand honesty and integrity? It may be too late for that. There are those who would rather do battle in the political arena as gladiators for their parties than defend a slowly dying constitution.
If Fox DOES limit the candidates, it should clearly state ahead of time what criteria it is using to winnow the field.
If they are using national polls, Ron Paul is polling with higher numbers than Fred Thompson and is statistically tied with Giuliani in most of the polls, and so should not be disqualified for that reason.
Young Americans from all parts of this beautiful country are awakening; he is the only one delivering the message that is reaching all three views, Republican, Democrats and Independents. Do you know why? Well I do not claim to know all the variables that play into this but I bet the following has a big role and that is young Americans see what is going on with their grandparents, where Medicare is a mess, social security is gone or running out and medication is to the roof.
Then they see their parents struggling to pay the bills and getting by week by week. Parents and grandparents sharing and commenting among themselves the good old days, talking about the days when this or that used to cost XYZ and when he or she used to work for this or that company and now all is gone. Then this generation born from 1964 to late 1980 is starting to really feel the pinch.
Yes the pinch of what is to come, it has been building year after year, for decades our government has been making decisions and policies that at that time sounded good, or that it may fix this or that, decisions that had a good burst of economic growth but that in the long run will need to be revised.
It is here now, this generation sees, hears and is starting to feel bad economic policies made decades ago: -1913 (16th Amendment to the constitution) then congress authorized the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank (Private institution) to control our money. -1933 – Big year, full of bad policies among the more important are President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102. (Unlawful to own or hold gold) and a joint resolution to abrogated the gold clause on all existing government and private contracts was signed. -1934 – “Gold Reserve Act” became law. This law took away title to all “Gold Certificates” and vested sole title to the U.S. Treasury.
In sum this and other measurements where executed by our government to end the “Fixed Dollar” and with it the “PAPER ERA BEGAN”. It is 2007 and our government still feels the need to continue feeding this machine, so what does it do? It continues to issue certificates to be purchased by BIG private investors and countries. So with every approval of funding this huge government is making us “We the People” especially this and future generation debtors. Yes, Money out of thin air.
People do not get distracted by your everyday personal or trivial issues, this subject one of many does matter a LOT to you, your loved ones, and ALL of us. We need to be aware of who is going to start to put an end to this otherwise we will end up like many other great countries from the past (Example: Rome, England, Spain, Greece). Back then they were called Empires and they ended up bankrupt due to bad policies and many, many of their people suffered. Do not take my word for it… just as I did read the information available in books, archives etc.
First recognize that mainstream news outlets: cable, print, and networks are virtual monopolies that have degenerated into an apparatchik that do little more than serve as a mouthpiece for established government policies. The marketplace for competing political ideas and ideals cannot take place in an environment in which the news is managed. The opinions expressed in this article would be much more relevant in an earlier day when serious independent investigative reporting was encouraged rather than discouraged. As for the idea that irate people should not boycott advertisers that support purveyors pf "junk news": ridiculous. An economic boycott is certainly within the purview of the "Paulistic" principle free choice.
Posted By: Douglas Rosenbrock
Date: 2008-01-01 11:08:42
First. I believe Ron Paul is going to place very well in both the Iowa and New Hampshire
primaries (3rd and 1st respectively). This in spite of and maybe because of ABC and Fox News'
pathetic last gasp attempts to maintain a modicum of MSM media viability. Their Soviet
style attempt to manipulate the outcome of this election by allowing only "likely" nominees
to participate in their "forums" (a term I'm sure their legions of lawyers assures them will
keep them from violating the terms of their FCC license agreements for use of
the "PUBLIC" airwaves) marks a turning point in the history of our great nation.
Ron Pauls recital of the founders message has ignited a firestorm torch of liberty around
the world, heard and embraced by people across the political spectrum that know the tyranny
of the few is upon us, and that electing Dr. Paul may be our last best hope to throw off their yolk.
So to Fox and ABC News and all of your main stream media comrades, I say, enjoy your last hurrah.
Your time is at hand. The Liberty bell is tolling and it tolls for you.
I hope Iowa and New Hampshire primary voters rise up against this chilling attempt to influence their
opinions and vote in large numbers against Fox and ABC News.
Long Live Liberty!!!
Ron Paul President of the United States of America 2008!!!
All things considered, this article is full of mixed messages. For me and mine, the question is whether we stand for freedom and liberty or not. I choose to stand for freedom and liberty! Fox and the other propaganda machines be damned!
Freedom and liberty... even for those I disagree vehemently with. Thanks for the editorial, you hit the nail on the head, it's what I've been saying since this mess started, we either support the first amendment, accept FOX's decision and attempt to peacefully and legally change their minds, or we trash freedom of speech and whine to the government bureaucracy like a bunch of leftists. I can't accept the argument of FOX not acting in the public interest on the public's airwaves because I can't accept the legitimacy of the FCC and its regulations in the first place.
www.whowouldtheworldelect.com this has to be the most honest poll possible... one vote per IP address... send it to every one you know.... ron paul '08
Godwhacker: "I don't see how swamping Fox with protest e-mails or threatening sponcers with boycotts as having any conflict with libertarianism ..."
Protest, certainly. Tell sponsors you don't like Fox, if you'd like. The issue is "swamping". I think mass emails that are malicious and intended to harm are not consistent with Paul's message.
For those who don't know, libertarians generally oppose government *ownership* of the airwaves, although favoring laws that protecting privately-owned frequencies from trespass. I'm not sure whether Ron has addressed this issue, but I'm very confident that he would not use the FCC to badger broadcasters who don't serve some vague "public interest." The premier public interest is free speech.
Fox News is definitely not the only culprit when it comes to ignoring the good doctor. I just got through watching Nightline on ABC and the entire program was devoted to the Iowa Caucas, and every possible candidate was either shown or mentioned, even Kucinich. Giuliani and McCain, who have supposedly written off Iowa and weren't going to even try there, were given lots of air time. But Ron Paul was completely ignored, as if he doesn't even exist. I am a huge Paul supporter, and I'm praying that he has a strong showing in both Iowa and New Hampshire, as that would be the only way to negate this injustice.
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.
