What does the media have against Ron Paul? The answer, unfortunately, is nothing

Posted on by TheLastPsychiatrist and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

CBS reports the results of the Suffolk University Poll for the NH Primary, and explained who won, and what three candidates didn’t win, and then took a nap.  Ron Paul came in second, as evidenced by this graphic:

ron paul poll cbs

 

I don’t like Ron Paul, but you can’t help but shudder when you see this happening. Journalists remind us they need and deserve unfettered access in order to give the public the truth, but evidently they need the access to decide what should be true.

You may remember this has happened before:

 

 

The reflexive media excuse for this omission is that Ron Paul is not a viable candidate despite his early popularity, and that’s a fair guess; but it’s a lie. Huntsman, Palin, and Bachmann never stood a chance, and yet they were given plenty of coverage.  Why do I still know the name Dick Gephardt?

In fact, the media’s stated excuse is exactly the opposite of the truth. It’s not because Ron Paul can’t win that he gets less press than Bachmann; it is precisely that Bachmann definitely can’t win that makes her an excellent candidate for the media to talk about. Bachmann is “extreme” in her views, an easy target: “look at the kind of person you people support.” And when she finally loses, you’re forced to reconsider yourself, forced to nudge “closer to center” (i.e closer to them.) It’s the same mechanism, though more obvious, when Fox News devoted time to Al Sharpton’s candidacy, but this should worry you: is Bachmann really the equivalent of Sharpton?

Santorum is now the media’s preferred symbol of the Republican party; again, there is no chance he will win, but he serves the required function of (mis)representing ideology. “We’re realists, he’s an ideologue.” But that statement is ideology.

Neither is this limited to MSNBC; Fox also prefers Santorum as a symbol because he becomes bait for enraged liberals who don’t know enough to not walk into a trap, and then Fox can pick them off. “You ideological nuts just hate him because he happens to be a Christian.”

Santorum’s not going to be President. That’s why they’re telling you about him.

Ron Paul won’t win either, but he makes a terrible symbol to oppose because his different views fall into the red or blue bins, variously.  But this is why he’s perfect for Jon Stewart, who himself stands in opposition to the MSM– Viacom does not own any MSM outlets.  When he wants to bash Republicans he’ll use Santorum, when he wants to bash the MSM, he’ll use Ron Paul and not Santorum.

The point is that the media isn’t reporting an election, or even influencing an election; they are using the candidates as pawns in their own ideological war.

The purpose of the reporting is not to discredit the candidate, but to make you doubt yourself. That’s how you win an ideological battle.

 

see also: the coverage of Sara Ackerman

 http://twitter.com/thelastpsych

http://twitter.com/pastabagel

Related posts:

  1. Of Course Fox News is Biased, Jon, but It Doesn’t Matter

8 Responses to What does the media have against Ron Paul? The answer, unfortunately, is nothing

  1. JohnJ says:

    “Fox also prefers Santorum as a symbol because he becomes bait for enraged liberals who don’t know enough to not walk into a trap, and then Fox can pick them off. ‘You ideological nuts just hate him because he happens to be a Christian.'”

    I seem to recall submitting a post with exactly that point, but which, for some reason, wasn’t published.

    Although you said it better than I did.

    • Jerboa says:

      Wait, there are submissions they don’t accept? I thought people just sort of did whatever here, as long as it wasn’t excessively abusive towards other people or the English language.

  2. The Rambling Fool says:

    So… you’re saying that the media is using candidates like Bachman as tools to try and make people think less radically?

    …and that’s so horrible, why?

    I think it’s safe to say that this isn’t a leftist plot to make everybody think like a Barack Obama. And even if it were, it wouldn’t work. As far as I’m concerned, if people are doing a double-take to consider whether or not they are as nuts as Michelle Bachman…. I’m okay with that.

  3. Pingback: The Continuing Media Blackout Of Ron Paul | Disinformation

  4. Pingback: The Continuing Media Blackout Of Ron Paul « Darin R. McClure – The Good Life In San Clemente

  5. Nik says:

    Close, MSM doesn’t ignore RP because he doesn’t fit a narrative. They ignore him because he espouses a narrative that not enough people follow. Caring about him just doesn’t matter. It doesn’t make them any money. The Daily Show covers it not because Johnny or the staff (or their corporate overloads) cares, but enough of their demographic are intelligent, jaded, loonies; fucked enough in the head to disassociate themselves from caring, but zealous enough to want, and at the same time realize, their “people are smart enough to take care of themselves and others” Eden wont be materializing. I don’t know, he’s an old, out of touch, racist, radical, kook, and I may not believe in the gold standard, but I like that he sees us as individuals.

Leave a Reply