Non partisan confirmation of the Ron Paul snow job

[kelpdiver 2]

Again confirming that Paul is fighting the media as well as political realities to make a viable campaign run.

[ur]http://www.journalism.org/numbers_report/are_media_ignoring_ron_paul[/url]

In the right corner box: "In a further attempt to gauge the post-straw poll attention to Paul’s campaign, PEJ also used the Snapstream server’s closed captioning capability to assess the candidates’ television coverage in the first few days after that balloting.

The sample included the three network Sunday morning panel shows on August 14, the morning and evening network news programs on August 15 and four hours of prime-time cable and one hour of daytime from each of the three major cable news networks on August 15.

According to that analysis, Paul was mentioned just 29 times. By comparison, Perry was mentioned 371 times, Bachmann was mentioned 274 times, and Romney was mentioned 183 times. "

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Again confirming that Paul is fighting the media as well as political realities to make a viable campaign run.

[ur]http://www.journalism.org/numbers_report/are_media_ignoring_ron_paul[/url]

In the right corner box: "In a further attempt to gauge the post-straw poll attention to Paul’s campaign, PEJ also used the Snapstream server’s closed captioning capability to assess the candidates’ television coverage in the first few days after that balloting.

The sample included the three network Sunday morning panel shows on August 14, the morning and evening network news programs on August 15 and four hours of prime-time cable and one hour of daytime from each of the three major cable news networks on August 15.

According to that analysis, Paul was mentioned just 29 times. By comparison, Perry was mentioned 371 times, Bachmann was mentioned 274 times, and Romney was mentioned 183 times. "

Here's how I think it works:

1. Lazy American voters watch TV
2. Americans believe they are informed by watching TV
3. Americans only consider and bring into discussion the candidates shoved down their throats courtesy of their TVs
4. Americans vote based on who they see on TV (regardless of whether Ron Paul wins a Fox debate or comes in a close second in the Iowa straw poll)

Noteworthy: the same companies that bring in advertising revenue for the TV channels also fund those candidates presented to Americans on TV. Therefore, most candidates from both parties (including Obama) are shills for those same financial supporters, while the couch potato electorate vote for those bought candidates, thinking they represent their interests.

"Left" v "Right"/"Rep" v "Dem" = playing right into their hands.

So...until people pull the plugs on their televisions (or preferably swing sledgehammers through their television screens), we'll always have the same whores "representing the people."

Voting for Ron Paul breaks this cycle. That the media is shunning him only strengthens my support for him.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Voting for Ron Paul breaks this cycle. That the media is shunning him only strengthens my support for him.

I'm not a supporter, but I do want him in the campaign to keep the debate on real issues rather than the contrived ones.

[billvon 3,132]

I think Ron Paul would be a great addition to the (rather lacking) list of candidates vying for the office of President. But I also don't think there's any concerted effort to "suppress" him or anything.

Right here on DZ.com the numbers over the past year are:

Barack Obama 5457 matches
Sarah Palin 926 matches
Ron Paul 331 matches

Does that mean there's a concerted effort to suppress discussion of him in favor of Palin? Or do people just get more worked up about Palin?

Modern news is more entertainment than news, and they talk about what people want to hear. And let's face it, Ron Paul is (from an entertainment perspective) boring. For people who want less entertainment, there's always the more boring outlets like NPR or the Guardian.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Modern news is more entertainment than news, and they talk about what people want to hear.

He just placed second, with twice the votes of #2 and just behind the winner. It seems like people do want to hear about the guy.

[Andy9o8 3]

One of the reasons why Paul is getting comparatively less attention is the same as one of the reasons why Pawlenty did, too: he engages in civil discourse and doesn't say outrageous shit to get keep his name on the public front burner.

Bachmann and Perry are front-burner news because they use the same technique that, for example, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter do: under the principle that "All publicity is good publicity", they say outrageous shit to get attention, and then the next day all the news outlets are abuzz with talk about what he/she said. Just look at Perry's comment, a couple days ago, about the Federal government being "treasonous" - for 24 hours, it was headline news.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

I think Ron Paul would be a great addition to the (rather lacking) list of candidates vying for the office of President. But I also don't think there's any concerted effort to "suppress" him or anything.

I have no doubt there's a concerted effort to suppress him. Why do you think Fox News deliberately excluded him from one of the later 2008 presidential debates after he kicked ass in a previous one?

Quote

Right here on DZ.com the numbers over the past year are:

Barack Obama 5457 matches
Sarah Palin 926 matches
Ron Paul 331 matches

Does that mean there's a concerted effort to suppress discussion of him in favor of Palin? Or do people just get more worked up about Palin?

This site is a smaller representation of the greater American electorate, and the discourse in this forum is mostly about emotive non-issues that don't matter (guns, abortion, religion, etc.). The discourse is for the most part *not* civil here -- aping the left/right poo-slinging seen on television or heard from radio blowhards.

Most people here aren't talking about someone who talks sense like Ron Paul, because he's not given much attention on the television. Nothing deliberate here in SC, but I think discourse here is a representation of the BS covered by the big news channels.

I remember the first SC thread I read was in 2004, and it was about Cindy Sheehan -- again, shit that doesn't matter, as seen on tv.

Quote

Modern news is more entertainment than news, and they talk about what people want to hear. And let's face it, Ron Paul is (from an entertainment perspective) boring. For people who want less entertainment, there's always the more boring outlets like NPR or the Guardian.

If the electability of our leadership depends on entertainment value, this country is in some very serious trouble.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[billvon 3,132]

>I have no doubt there's a concerted effort to suppress him. Why do you think Fox
>News deliberately excluded him from one of the later 2008 presidential debates after
>he kicked ass in a previous one?

Same reason Jay Leno hasn't told any Ron Paul jokes until recently. They figure he won't attract enough viewers.

It's like asking why Costco is making a concerted effort to exclude Lost Abbey beers from the beer that they sell. Are they really hating on Tomme Arthur? Or do they just sell plenty of cheaper beer and make more money on it?

>This site is a smaller representation of the greater American electorate, and the
>discourse in this forum is mostly about emotive non-issues that don't matter (guns,
>abortion, religion, etc.).

Exactly.

>The discourse is for the most part *not* civil here -- aping the left/right poo-slinging
>seen on television or heard from radio blowhards.

Again, agreed.

>Most people here aren't talking about someone who talks sense like Ron
>Paul, because he's not given much attention on the television. Nothing
>deliberate here in SC, but I think discourse here is a representation of the
>BS covered by the big news channels.

The media does not exist to give a stage to people who make sense. In a capitalist society, driven by market share, a media news outlet exists to make money*. If people are interested in Sarah Palin's antics, and outlet A leads with Palin every half hour and outlet B puts a Ron Paul speech in the same timeslot - outlet B will lose market share to outlet A, and eventually the shareowners of outlet B will demand that the executives correct that problem.

That's why looking at topics here is instructive. People are talking about what they're interested in - and history has shown that people are far more interested in Sarah Palin than in Ron Paul. Is that a bad thing? Probably, but it's our fault, not the media's.

>I remember the first SC thread I read was in 2004, and it was about Cindy
>Sheehan -- again, shit that doesn't matter, as seen on tv.

It doesn't matter to you. If a Sheehan concentration means that a station gains market share, and can sell their advertising for an extra $50,000 a month - that matters a great deal to people who want that $50,000.

>If the electability of our leadership depends on entertainment value, this
>country is in some very serious trouble.

The electability of anyone in a representative government depends on their popularity, which in turn greatly depends on their like-ability. During the election in 2000, "who would you rather have a beer with?" was a very common question, and indeed had a large effect on the outcome of the election.

So yes, in some ways it _does_ depend on entertainment value.

(* - with very few exceptions, like NPR and Wikipedia.)