The Media and Ron Paul
So you’ve all seen the Jon Stewart clip about the media ignoring Ron Paul. Here are my thoughts.
First, the media are ignoring Ron Paul. This is so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning.
I find it sad, because while he’s far, far from perfect, Paul tracks my own policy preferences much better than any Republican candidate other than Gary Johnson, who gets (I believe) even less press coverage. In an election between Paul and any Republican other than Johnson, I’d pick Paul instantly. No question.
So why are the media ignoring him? Because Paul couldn’t win the nomination no matter how much they talked about him. He has a hard core of supporters, but growing beyond it is going to be impossible. The Republican Party remains solidly pro-war, and Ron Paul is still… Ron Paul. Folks in the media know this — and about Johnson, too.
Now, being unable to win is in itself is not a sufficient reason to ignore a candidate. Paul himself got much more press last cycle, when his polling numbers were as I recall far lower. But back then he appealed as a novelty, at least for those who didn’t remember his 1988 campaign on the Libertarian ticket. He has no such novelty this time around, and the only other interesting narrative — “look, Republicans won’t vote for an antiwar candidate even after we all know the wars are giant boondoggles” — only has legs for so long. (Still waiting for the narrative “look, Democrats voted for someone they thought was an antiwar candidate, but he wasn’t!” Which would be true, of course, but depressing.)
Far more than novelty, and more even than embarrassing the Republicans, what the media want most are close elections, both primary and general. Landslides are snoozes. That’s why we get talked up to us candidates who are increasingly similar to one another; the refinement and expansion of polling, also a creature of the media, has done much to further this development. It should be clear by now that Ron Paul isn’t interested in tailoring his message to produce a close election when the other choice is to lose and lose well. So Ron Paul doesn’t fit in this world. Nor do any principled but eccentric candidates, who campaign not necessarily to win, but as an expression of belief.
The media can at least make an argument for panning Gary Johnson, whose name recognition hovers around 12-14%.
But Ron Paul has 76% name recognition, he is in a very real sense a “household name”.
The media is ignoring a huge story, whether he’s destined for the nomination or not, he is driving the debate in this election.Report
Can you really imagine a big story about Ron Paul that would win the morning?
Everyone who would be interested in Paul basically knows where he stand already, so a general issues expose would look stale. He’s steadfast in his views, so there’s no flip-flopper angle. The issues where he’s really out-there, potential gotcha issues, are complex financial anachronisms that nobody wants to understand. On the other stuff, he’s not very good at kneecapping the other candidates. And even if he were, the other candidates have figured out that it’s easier to ignore him and respond with party boilerplate, so there’s not even a response.
Basically, Ron Paul can’t start fights, and his internal contradictions are either well-known or boring. So what good is he?Report
http://www.journalism.org/numbers_report/are_media_ignoring_ron_paul?src=prc-tweetReport
I feel like the number of stories I’ve been bemoaning Ron Paul’s lack of coverage by the media (partially) make up for the initial snub (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61430.html and the segment on Stewart’s show, for example). Besides, he truly is a niche candidate, whichever way you look at it. Granted, he is a very big niche candidate, but a Nader or Perot at best.
Also, “what the media wants is close elections.” ? That…or the fact that any political party’s goal (and the people that vote for said party) is to win an election. Let’s not put the cart before the horse.Report
It’s certainly true that parties want to win elections. But the media want balance — so they seem fair — and photo finishes, so the eyeballs stay glued.Report
I have a different explanation. Call it the Paultard Paradox.
Any time a major news outlet writes a story on Ron Paul, the comments box (and presumably the author’s email) is flooded with his loudest and least literate supporters making their usual bizarre claims about the NAFTA superhighway, WTC 7 and fiat money. It’s just not worth the trouble.
The guy’s worst enemies are his greatest fans.Report
Undercovering Paul is being compensated for by overcovering Perry.Report
Perry, hell — Paul gets less coverage than Donald Trump did.Report
Unfortunately, I think it has MUCH MORE to do with the inherent sensationalism in about 90% of American media (if not MORE) that simply reports whatever “makes the most money”, rather than the BEST STORIES, and since Paul’s not all that “exciting” compared to, say, Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain, they’re not gonna talk about him all that much. :/ Plus, Paul getting high on these straw polls and GOP phone polls is kind of EXPECTED now, so why comment on it further? But Michele Bachmann getting NUMBER 1 in a GOP straw poll IS rather surprising.
I doubt there’s some “big media conspiracy” to keep Paul down, esp. with all the traction he got THE LAST TIME he ran in 2008. He’s not exactly a newbie. And all the reports of how he rose so much in all those “money bombs”…
I’m all for Ron Paul winning the GOP nomination (although I probably agree more with Gary Johnson overall on the issues), and it would certainly keep Obama on his toes, but the fact of the matter IS that, ever since the 2008 election cycle, I see Ron Paul in my subscriptions box on some talk show on one of the three cable news networks ALMOST DAILY! So he was certainly getting quite a bit of attention OUTSIDE the race for pres.Report
After all, the vast majority of well-known media outlets in the U.S. ARE corporations or owned by them. They’re in it for the money, and “journalism” really comes second, unfortunately.Report
If they truly cared about “reporting the big stories no matter what”, why not just file as nonprofits?? I mean, you can STILL make enough money to cover losses, but your FIDUCIARY responsibility and drive wouldn’t be to simply make money. You wouldn’t have to answer to shareholders and could have more freedom as an editor or whatever.Report
Landslide elections are not “snoozes” sir. The “close” elections are used so the results can be easily manipulated by the vote counters. Landslides would make it impossible to defraud the people. NBC manipulated the poll results with it’s ridiculous bar graph showing Romney’s 16 percent nearly even to Dr. Pauls 53 percent?? No one is perfect but Dr. Paul represents the biggest threat to the New World Order’s control of things and I fear for his life. Just as Dr. Paul wants to end the Fed so did McKinnely, Lincoln, and Kennedy and they were all murdered.Report
The Fed did not exist when Lincoln and McKinley were in office. Sir.Report
I would love to take a US History course that was taught according to Paulite cultist standards.Report
And that reason for Kennedy’s assassination sounds even less likely than “Because he wanted to pull out of Vietnam”.Report
… kennedy was threatening to take money out of the pockets of bankers. Just like McKinley, I believe.
The concept of bankers plotting to overthrow the government shouldn’t be really a “But WHAT??” considering the coup attempt in the ’40’s.
… any conspiracy theory must hold up to “why did Arlen Spector lie about it?” Mind control is not an acceptable answer.Report
The Fed didn’t exist and then they were assassinated.
Do you need a diagram?Report
You’re discounting the Fed’s time traveling capabilities. Amateur.Report
I thought that McKinnely, Lincoln, and Kennedy were murdered by the Illuminati, working with the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires! Now you tell me it was the NWO trying to protect the fed? This will require a complete revision of my world view.Report