After years of staying on message, presidential candidate Ron Paul is capturing the hearts and minds of a growing number of people, being perceived as a real threat from Democrats and Republicans alike.
That has resulted in both parties putting pressure on media outlets to ensure Paul gains no more traction.
John Kass said:
Why is the American media so intent on ignoring congressman Ron Paul and his prickly libertarian views?
Paul is running for president in the Republican primaries, and it's plain that the handmaidens of the political establishment — Democrats as well as Republicans — are freezing him out.
Libyan Civil War (2011) He came within a few votes of winning last week's Iowa straw poll, just 152 votes short among almost 17,000 cast.
But rather than shower this intriguing candidate and his views with attention, the news media willfully forgot about him. The question is, why?
Perhaps the answer could be found during the recent Fox News debate in Iowa, in which Paul trashed Republican saber-rattling toward a potentially nuclear Iran.
"They're building up this case like, just like we did in Iraq — build up the war propaganda," Paul said. "It's time we quit this. It's time — it's trillions of dollars we're spending on these wars."
After that, he couldn't get himself into a news story for days.
But this media freeze-out started long before. The Project for Excellence in Journalism studied media coverage of Paul from January through Aug. 14, and demonstrated that he received much less coverage than non-candidates such as Donald Trump and Sarah Palin.
After reading that, I got a little paranoid and did what any reasonable guy would do. I fashioned a cone-shaped hat from aluminum foil and put it on as I typed this column. The last thing I needed was to have my mind channeled by either Democratic Merlin David Axelrod or Republican Rasputin Karl Rove.
Even liberal comedian Jon Stewart, not my typical go-to source, seemed ashamed of the media's treatment of Paul. On his show last week, Stewart ran clips of broadcast news coverage that slapped Paul around.
News anchors gushed over the "top tier" Republicans in Iowa, and even though Paul came in second behind U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, he wasn't considered "top tier" enough to be mentioned.
"Really?" asked Stewart, as Paul's photo flashed on the screen. "You're not forgetting … say, an ideologically consistent 12-term congressman who came within less than 200 votes of winning the straw poll? Isn't anyone going to give that gentleman any love?"
Love may indeed be the reason the media ignores Ron Paul. Under this theory, the media is merely trying to provide us with loving protection from Paul and those challenging libertarian ideals:
Such as the view we shouldn't be eager to be groped in airports or to fund another war in the Middle East, or that we should legalize drugs rather than fight the drug wars, or the wild idea that a coffee shop waitress should not be expected to pay taxes on her tips.
These are extreme notions, though the principles behind them were once held dear by a few old guys in powdered wigs who founded this country.
The TV people are happy to do the work for you, and tell you what notions are fit for public debate. Thinking for yourself is really, really hard, and it's just easier to watch TV and listen to discussions about Bachmann's hair.
Another possible reason why the media is ignoring Paul could be fear rather than love. Perhaps Democrats and Republicans are afraid of him.
Paul is anti-war, and there are many independent Democrats who've been anti-war, including those who elected President Barack Obama in 2008 and have since turned on him because, well, he recently help start a war in Libya, turning America's two wars into three.
Paul also doesn't campaign on social issues, like outlawing abortion, or involving the government in the bedroom. He's not a political evangelical, so Paul's stance would be attractive to many Democrats.
And that is why I put on my tinfoil hat, lest magic-man Axelrod zap me with one of his mind-control spells before I could finish typing. Yet it's obvious that tin-foil brain prophylactics are also needed against the powers of Axelrod's doppelganger, Rove.
For years now, Rove has sputtered angrily about the libertarians, and it's obvious Republicans see Paul as a threat. Perhaps it's the fact that Paul ridicules the GOP military drumbeat against Iran. It may be that he appeals to tea party fiscal conservatives, and if these voters begin to lean toward Paul, the establishment GOP will be left with defense contractors, neocons and evangelicals, not enough to win a national election.
I'm not picking a candidate yet, and I reserve the right to flip and flop like any other voter, depending on what the candidates say and how their hair looks on TV.
Paul loathes government even more than I do, but his throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater philosophy of reform gives me pause. Still, he's intriguing.
So even a blind goose can see that by freezing Paul out, the media serves the political establishment, but that's about it.
"It is hard for them to accept," Paul told Politico's liberal Roger Simon in a recent interview about the candidate's media treatment after the Iowa vote. "They (the media) believe this guy is dangerous to the status quo, but that is a reason to be more energized."
Paul is dangerous to the status quo. And that's a reason not to ignore him.
The bottom line to me is Paul has earned and the public deserves far broader coverage of his campaign, as much that he represents, especially in regard to government spending and economics, is what is needed at this time in the country. Hopefully the media will respond so a wider representation of people will hear an alternative and refreshing message than they've heard for some time.
No comments:
Post a Comment