One of our faithful readers, David, has asked us to find some article about the shabby treatment that Ron Paul is getting from the mainstream media. So when we read the following article, we knew it would fill the request.
Even though we are not a Paul supporter, we are disgusted with his treatment. Why do they avoid him like the plague? Why are they marginalizing him?
The answers depend upon whom you talk, however, the bottom line is that they are picking winners and losers. The press should not be in that business. Their job is to report the news, not make it.
In 1993, NBC Dateline filmed a Chevy pickup being hit and when the gas tank did not explode , they re-filmed it and added explosive charges so that when the collision occurred the truck burst into flames. It made a better story. When GM did their investigation they found that the idiots at NBC had dumped the truck in a junk car lot. It did not take much investigation to determine what had occurred. It seems they still have not learned.
Ron Paul should be honored for coming in second in the Republican field, not marginalized. He has campaigned, spent money and time trying to become the candidate in the upcoming election. This should not be the way we treat a potential President. The news should be reported not manufactured to meet "what we think the public should think."
What do you think?
Conservative Tom
Ron Paul Has No Chance Of Winning (According To The Press, Not Reality) Jan. 11, 2012,
The U.S. broadcast media now writes the news, they no longer report it. And they appear ever more at odds with reality.
This isn't what happened. This isn't what the pundits discussed last night, on CNN or on FOX News.
But I still haven't received a single good answer for what CBS did to Ron Paul on January 5th. In my opinion, that's one of the best pieces of original reporting I've ever done. It's little more than a screengrab and a recap of what happened, but it serves as tangible proof that something nefarious is afoot here. The media isn't giving this guy a fair shake, for whatever reason. (Just as the U.S. broadcast media continues to neglect the NDAA and SOPA, even though thousands of people have been e-mailing, calling, and tweeting anchors and reporters to demand coverage.)
Read more: http://207.46.192.232/proxy.ashx?a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fron-paul-has-no-chance-of-winning-according-to-the-press-not-reality-2012-1#ixzz1jD7JjhN2
Even though we are not a Paul supporter, we are disgusted with his treatment. Why do they avoid him like the plague? Why are they marginalizing him?
The answers depend upon whom you talk, however, the bottom line is that they are picking winners and losers. The press should not be in that business. Their job is to report the news, not make it.
In 1993, NBC Dateline filmed a Chevy pickup being hit and when the gas tank did not explode , they re-filmed it and added explosive charges so that when the collision occurred the truck burst into flames. It made a better story. When GM did their investigation they found that the idiots at NBC had dumped the truck in a junk car lot. It did not take much investigation to determine what had occurred. It seems they still have not learned.
Ron Paul should be honored for coming in second in the Republican field, not marginalized. He has campaigned, spent money and time trying to become the candidate in the upcoming election. This should not be the way we treat a potential President. The news should be reported not manufactured to meet "what we think the public should think."
What do you think?
Conservative Tom
Ron Paul Has No Chance Of Winning (According To The Press, Not Reality) Jan. 11, 2012,
David Seaman
Last night's shameful New Hampshire GOP coverage was a prime example.
When I watch these sorts of things, I now try to have a "spotter" with me -- someone to confirm that yes, in fact, the same bias I noticed is noticeable to others. And to preserve my sanity.Now, Ron Paul came in second place -- a strong 23% showing.
You would think the media would divide most of their time between discussing Mitt Romney's first place, and parsing Ron Paul's "surprising" second place. Right?This isn't what happened. This isn't what the pundits discussed last night, on CNN or on FOX News.
Aside from the predictable kissing of Mitt Romney's rear-end, nearly ALL of the pundit noise was focused on Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who each slithered away with 9.4%.
So, our supposedly free press barely mentioned Ron Paul by name at all last night, yet they spent a lot of fireworks on "analyzing" a tie between two third-placers who have, in my view, not a snowball's chance in Hell of becoming the GOP nominee.
Maybe this is all my imagination? Sure, maybe it is.But I still haven't received a single good answer for what CBS did to Ron Paul on January 5th. In my opinion, that's one of the best pieces of original reporting I've ever done. It's little more than a screengrab and a recap of what happened, but it serves as tangible proof that something nefarious is afoot here. The media isn't giving this guy a fair shake, for whatever reason. (Just as the U.S. broadcast media continues to neglect the NDAA and SOPA, even though thousands of people have been e-mailing, calling, and tweeting anchors and reporters to demand coverage.)
Read more: http://207.46.192.232/proxy.ashx?a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fron-paul-has-no-chance-of-winning-according-to-the-press-not-reality-2012-1#ixzz1jD7JjhN2
Via Liberty Pulse: "Thursday morning January 5th, 2012 on the Early Show, CBS news political correspondent Jan Crawford discusses the New Hampshire primary in video below which is titled ‘New Hampshire is the new Iowa’. During this segment they discuss every candidate in the Republican primary including Bachmann who dropped out, excluding Ron Paul from the entire segment. By not even mentioning Ron Paul’s name, once again, CBS brings into major question their ethics as a news agency. This segment becomes a bit comical/infuriating for Paul supporters as the report states that Romney has a 30 point lead over his rivals displaying Suffolk University Poll numbers for New Hampshire Romney 43% (skips mentioning Ron Paul who has 24% according to Washington Times) then they move to Gingrich, Huntsman and Santorum."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/shocking-cbs-blackout-of-ron-paul-during-entire-political-segment-2012-1
------------
While Tea Party conservatives are desperately wishing for the non-Mitt, the corporate aristocracy (especially the Wall Street bankers) will do just fine with either Obama or Romney as president, but not Ron Paul. They don't own him. He would veto corporate subsidies, appoint a Fed chairman who would stop the trillions of dollars provided to Wall Street and European banks, shrink the bloated military budget to a size maybe only double what China spends instead of 7-8 times more than them. They call him "dangerous." The question is, "Dangerous for whom?" The answer to that question is the reason why the media pretends he doesn't exist.
--David
Perfect analysis David. A few months before the Iowa caucuses establishment sources like CNN NBC, and even the faux FOX News, were doing their best to denigrate or pretend he didn't even exist. Despite all thier efforts the movement gained momentum, and they have turned to desperation now. Notice how the GOP used George W Bush to endorse Mitt Romney! Ron Paul is the only guy the GOP likes less than Romney. Romney is an extension of President Obama, just as President Obama was to President Bush. If by some miracle Ron Paul were to win the Republican nominee, it still wouldn't matter, the shadow forces would just engineer the re-election of Obama the pretender.
ReplyDeleteIt is scary to see the press completely disregard him. Why does the media pretend he doesn't exist? Would it cut into their corporate board rooms?
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the reason, the first amendment is not without responsibility. When the newsmedia makes up news or ignores real stories (Paul, it violates the very grounding of the amendment.
Freedom of press is the freedom to report on any story regardless of whom it hurts or embarrasses. This is a sacred trust with the people and we feel the newsmedia is breaking that trust. Does that mean they lose their freedom, possibly.
Here is an article entitled "Rush Limbaugh broadcasts on Clear Channel. Clear Channel is owned by Mitt Romney."
ReplyDeleteWhen you read the details, you will see that the headline is not accurate, but there is some interesting info in the article anyway. Limbaugh used to attack Romney as "not a conservative," but now that Romney has beaten all the would-be not-Mitt candidates, Limbaugh has been defending Romney and criticizing Gingrich and Perry. Funny guy.
--David
I heard Rush criticize Romney this year and in 2008. He is not in love with him. Saying that, he has been forced to defend him due to the stupid remarks that Newt's supporters have made regarding Romney's time at Bain Capital. Rush even commented on the irony yesterday as did Mark Levin.
ReplyDeleteRush is a conservative and I have heard him criticize Republican and Democratic Presidents. He was especially critical of Bush when it came to immigration.
Who knows who wrote the article, but we will bet they have only sporatically listened (if ever) to the program.
Nice historical article on defense spending...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/historical_defense_budget.html
--David
P.S. I know you will probably object to the source, but the numbers are valid.