Excellent bit by Jon Stewart about Ron Paul media bias

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/08/jon-stewart-ron-paul/41311/

Wow.  The media lynches itself with the video clips he scrounged up.

[MicroBalrog]

This is new?

[AZRedhawk44]

This is new?

Not new.  Just more topical than normal, given the GOP primary system now in play.

[zahc]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one that notices the obvious lengths that the paleomedia go to to avoid acknowledging Ron Paul. I was watching TV at lunch this week and they showed some poll results, and Ron Paul was second in the results, after Michelle Bachman. So, does the following discussion mention Ron Paul?  No, the next screen has Michelle Bachman, Perry, and Romney. It's as if they show the graph real quick and then just try to avoid even mentioning the fact that Ron Paul exists, despite the fact that he was second in the poll results on their own poll. I remember seeing exactly the same thing in 2008. Ron Paul would get 1st place in some opinion poll, but then they don't even discuss him! It's as if the media can't bring themselves to outright falsify the data, but they can't stomach actually discussing Ron Paul or acknowledging him. It would be comical in its obviousness if it wasn't so malicious. I mean, in 2008 he had a &$(* blimp, which should have been crack for the media, but I guess the blimp just had the wrong name on it, so all you got was these "oh yeah, here's a 2 second picture of the Ron Paul blimp and now, let's discuss Obama's haircut!" What I can't figure out is how this comes about; I don't like to believe conspiracy things about the media being controlled by the spooky powers but how else do they show such obvious bias toward the powers that be? What are they afraid of?

 See also: the 2008 rallys that got only token mention in the paleomedia.

[CNYCacher]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one that notices the obvious lengths that the paleomedia go to to avoid acknowledging Ron Paul. I was watching TV at lunch this week and they showed some poll results, and Ron Paul was second in the results, after Michelle Bachman. So, does the following discussion mention Ron Paul?  No, the next screen has Michelle Bachman, Perry, and Romney. It's as if they show the graph real quick and then just try to avoid even mentioning the fact that Ron Paul exists, despite the fact that he was second in the poll results on their own poll. I remember seeing exactly the same thing in 2008. Ron Paul would get 1st place in some opinion poll, but then they don't even discuss him! It's as if the media can't bring themselves to outright falsify the data, but they can't stomach actually discussing Ron Paul or acknowledging him. It would be comical in its obviousness if it wasn't so malicious. I mean, in 2008 he had a &$(* blimp, which should have been crack for the media, but I guess the blimp just had the wrong name on it, so all you got was these "oh yeah, here's a 2 second picture of the Ron Paul blimp and now, let's discuss Obama's haircut!" What I can't figure out is how this comes about; I don't like to believe conspiracy things about the media being controlled by the spooky powers but how else do they show such obvious bias toward the powers that be? What are they afraid of?

 See also: the 2008 rallys that got only token mention in the paleomedia.

Remember the Jan 2008 "Debate" on Fox news.  They invited the "Top 4 GOP Candidates" which included Paul. Then the de-invited paul and invited Giulianni, who to date had about half the primary votes Paul had.

Or how about the early "debate" where they went quite a while ignoring Paul, and then finally came round to him with "And now a question for you, Mr. Paul.  It's on electability:  Do you have any, sir?"  Ron somehow managed to not jump over the podium and choke the guy out, then gave a rousing response which touched on the root of the Republican party and how he was the only person holding to its original values. He finished it up with ". . . and you say I am not electable?"  For his effort he got a standing ovation from the crowd.

They couldn't avoid letting that tidbit out during the live airing, but that question and response was edited out of the re-airing.  That's right.  When Fox re-aired the "debate", they removed it!

I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but this is as plain a conspiracy as there ever was.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/08/jon-stewart-ron-paul/41311/

Wow.  The media lynches itself with the video clips he scrounged up.

That was entertaining. And sad.

It's as if the media can't bring themselves to outright falsify the data, but they can't stomach actually discussing Ron Paul or acknowledging him. It would be comical in its obviousness if it wasn't so malicious.

Agreed. I think George Wallace would get more airtime than Paul does.

[seeker_two]

I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but this is as plain a conspiracy as there ever was.

The "conservative" media has had it in for Paul and his supporters for a long time....remember the "ambush" interview Debra Medina had on Glenn Beck....

[Jamisjockey]

What I can't figure out is how this comes about; I don't like to believe conspiracy things about the media being controlled by the spooky powers but how else do they show such obvious bias toward the powers that be? What are they afraid of?

 See also: the 2008 rallys that got only token mention in the paleomedia.

Ron Paul represents an actual threat to the status quo for the parties and the media.

[longeyes]

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."  (The Usual Suspects)

The greatest trick the Powers-That-Be ever pulled was convincing us there are no conspiracies.

***

When Ron Paul talked about The Federal Reserve he became a man without a country politically.  No one is allowed to get that close.

[makattak]

There is no conspiracy because the press isn't that smart.

Ron Paul is treated as he is because the press considers him Lyndon LaRouche (is that the right spelling?)

He has a VERY committed group of followers. However, most people think his acolytes are nuts, and although he has strong support among a small percentage of the population (as any libertarian would), he is unlikely to progress beyond that support because most people think he and his acolytes are nuts.

Most people will agree with at least some part of his positions. It is, however, the case that most people will find at least one position that he holds to be absolutely insane and suicidal, thus dooming his candidacy.

It's not a conspiracy. It's that his positions alienate anyone outside of libertarians. (His fiscal views will alienate liberals. His pollyannaish foreign policy views alienate conservatives. He's a libertarian candidate and he represents the best libertarians on their own would be able to achieve.)

Until Ron Paul proves he can win over more than roughly 12% of the electorate, he's unlikely to get much focus. His kooky supporters in 2008 have made people wary of trusting any poll where he does well.

[longeyes]

I was not talking about Ron Paul, I was talking about The Federal Reserve.  And that, in my opinion, IS a conspiracy.

[AJ Dual]

There is no conspiracy because the press isn't that smart.

Ron Paul is treated as he is because the press considers him Lyndon LaRouche (is that the right spelling?)

He has a VERY committed group of followers. However, most people think his acolytes are nuts, and although he has strong support among a small percentage of the population (as any libertarian would), he is unlikely to progress beyond that support because most people think he and his acolytes are nuts.

Most people will agree with at least some part of his positions. It is, however, the case that most people will find at least one position that he holds to be absolutely insane and suicidal, thus dooming his candidacy.

It's not a conspiracy. It's that his positions alienate anyone outside of libertarians. (His fiscal views will alienate liberals. His pollyannaish foreign policy views alienate conservatives. He's a libertarian candidate and he represents the best libertarians on their own would be able to achieve.)

Until Ron Paul proves he can win over more than roughly 12% of the electorate, he's unlikely to get much focus. His kooky supporters in 2008 have made people wary of trusting any poll where he does well.

That's really it.

The committed Libertarian machine has an ability to affect straw polls and caucus results out of any proportion to his actual ability to win in a general election.

Frankly, I'm AMAZED the MSM hasn't glommed onto Paul as a sure-fire way to sink any GOP chances for winning back POTUS. I'd love to see a Libertarian America, however, until the LP actually builds a base at the local level, Ron Paul is nothing but 100 yard punt return/Hail Mary pass wishful thinking. The Libertarian/Ron Paul movement hasn't even been able to significantly affect the GOP the way the Tea Party has been able to bend them back towards more than just lip-service fiscal conservatism.

If the Tea Party, which is only two years old, if that, and has no central coordination can sweep that many Congressional seats, and bend the ear of the rest of the party as it has, but the LP which has existed for decades now has only Ron Paul... well, I think people can do the math.

[longeyes]

If the Tea Partiers believe that "smaller government" alone is going to save American or turn it around--without addressing the kinds of things a Ron Paul does--they are wasting their time. 

[MicroBalrog]

but the LP which has existed for decades now has only Ron Paul... well, I think people can do the math.

And Paul Broun. And Justin Amash. And Randall Paul.

[makattak]

And Paul Broun. And Justin Amash. And Randall Paul.

Aside from Rand Paul (who doesn't sound so much like a libertarian these days), as an informed voter and political junkie, let me say:

Who?

[MicroBalrog]

Representatives.

[MechAg94]

If the Tea Partiers believe that "smaller government" alone is going to save American or turn it around--without addressing the kinds of things a Ron Paul does--they are wasting their time. 

Gotta start somewhere.  Small govt is something you can campaign on in the present reality.  Abolishing the Fed is not. 

More Importantly:  If you get a bunch of Congressmen who actually do the small govt thing, you are a hell of a lot more likely to actually get the other stuff Ron Paul likes. 

[RevDisk]

I was not talking about Ron Paul, I was talking about The Federal Reserve.  And that, in my opinion, IS a conspiracy.

I do gotta say, it was kinda weird standing in the middle of the information security center for the Federal Reserve.  Not as nice as you'd think, really, but quite good enough.

Combine lack of any economics education in the US with a short attention span.  That's the amount of the conspiracy.



Ron Paul is ignored because the media wants him to be crazy, because it is better than the alternative.  Is he?  Sure, probably.  So what?  It is preferable to the alternative.  Any politician, none of whom will admit it, is that it is politically infeasible to run the country responsibly.  The only solution is to kick the can down the road and hope one dies before the bill comes due.  This is the sane solution, honestly.  It takes an insane man to think that he can accomplish the impossible, that is, a fiscally responsible government.

[AZRedhawk44]

  It takes an insane man to think that he can accomplish the impossible, that is, a fiscally responsible government.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics

Americans are getting a bit more insane, then.

And Gallup is waking up.  The media might pay a bit more attention to the crazy old uncle, soon.

[Scout26]

  Any politician, none of whom will admit it, is that it is politically infeasible to run the country responsibly.  The only solution is to kick the can down the road and hope one dies before the bill comes due.  This is the sane solution, honestly.  It takes an insane man to think that he can accomplish the impossible, that is, a fiscally responsible government.

Andrew Jackson

[makattak]

Andrew Jackson

Are you implying Andrew Jackson was a responsible president?

Or that he was insane? I'll go with the latter, but I question the former.

[kgbsquirrel]

Are you implying Andrew Jackson was a responsible president?

Or that he was insane? I'll go with the latter, but I question the former.

He's implying that what you perceive to be impossible, the removal of a central bank, is in actuality a historical fact. Andrew Jackson did exactly such a thing during his presidency and was wholly opposed to such private banks controlling the nation's money supply for the following reasons:

    It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
    It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
    It served mainly to make the rich richer.
    It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
    It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.
    Banks are controlled by a few select families.
    Banks have a long history of instigating wars between nations, forcing them to borrow funding to pay for them.




Personally, I've always been fond of the following joke: "Irony is Andrew Jackson on a central bank note."

[roo_ster]

Old Hickory knew how to deal with the monied interests.

[makattak]

He's implying that what you perceive to be impossible, the removal of a central bank, is in actuality a historical fact. Andrew Jackson did exactly such a thing during his presidency and was wholly opposed to such private banks controlling the nation's money supply for the following reasons:

    It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
    It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
    It served mainly to make the rich richer.
    It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
    It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.
    Banks are controlled by a few select families.
    Banks have a long history of instigating wars between nations, forcing them to borrow funding to pay for them.

Personally, I've always been fond of the following joke: "Irony is Andrew Jackson on a central bank note."

I've never implied it was impossible. I've flatly stated it is a foolish focus as other issues are far more important. SPENDING, for example.

[MicroBalrog]

Spending is far less important in my view than some other concerns.