I’ve heard about the massive biases of fox news, but being in Australia, I’ve never seen it firsthand.
Is this Jon Stewart video true or comically exagerated.
If so, why is it like this?
You do realize that most of the clips in those segments were from news broadcasts that weren’t Fox News, right?
I’m not very familiar with American TV
This isn’t a Fox News issue. There really is a systemic bias against Ron Paul in the American media. He doesn’t get attention nearly in line with the amount of support he has. He says things that are quite radical and quotable that you’d think the media would like to cover, but they don’t. If anything, you’d think Fox News would support him since teahadism is the flavor of the month, and he’s been a real deal libertarian for decades.
It’s so obvious that it feels deliberate. Why, I’m not sure. Maybe because Paul is someone who’s actually a legitimate maverick - he doesn’t pander, he’s true to his principles, whatever you may think of them. He’s not controlled by any party establishment. Maybe the powers that be are against an actual ideologically consistent and legitimate libertarian position rather than the fake, lying, talking points controllable garbage the astroturf tea party movement puts out, because people with real power in this country created the latter and are threatened by the former.
If you look in one corner of most of those clips, you can see the little “network bug” that signifies what network the coverage is from.
Here’s a breakdown:
Meet the Press, NBC
Face the Nation, CBS
Fox News
Fox News
Fox News
CNN (mentioning Huntsman)
MSNBC (poll w/ Paul in 3rd)
Fox News (debate footage)
Clip of Gary Busey
CNN
I included all the separate clips, even when they only cut back to John for a second or two, so it’s easier to keep track.
It’s equal-opportunity blacklisting!
I didn’t follow the straw poll coverage very closely, but the Daily Show usually does a good job of these things. Assuming it’s an accurate representation of how the results were covered, it’s bad journalism. Why did it happen? I’ll throw out a couple of reasons because there is rarely just one.
-
Ron Paul can’t win the nomination, so there’s not much point in paying attention to him.
This is factually true. There’s no way he’s going to win. When he had his super duper radical awesome moneybombing Ron Paul revolution in 2008, he did better than expected but still did not come anywhere close to winning. But there’s no way Huntsman is going to win and they still talk about him sometimes. It’s bad coverage regardless because journalism should report on the story rather than creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, which to some extent is what’s happening here.
For that matter it should be noted that the Ames Straw Poll is a big and colorful event, so it attracts the press, but it’s not a major indicator of anything in terms of who will win the nomination. It was really overhyped this year. -
Related to 1, His views are out of the mainstream.
Which everybody knows because it’s something everybody knows. It happens to be true in my opinion - Paul has some positions that have common sense appeal and others that are pretty nutty - but that doesn’t mean he should be ignored. The coverage of the Republican contenders this year has largely been driven by “who is the nuttiest?” and on that front it hardly makes sense to ignore Paul because he’s out of the mainstream. -
Paul isn’t a sexy new face.
Michele Bachmann is new-ish on the national scene and she says a lot of crazy shit. Mitt Romney is a rich flip-flipper and he’s trying to win over the conservatives who wouldn’t vote for him last time. Rick Perry is (supposedly) coming out of nowhere to the set the world on fire. Ron Paul is exactly the same guy he was in 2008. If you have the attention span of a goldfish whose Ritalin prescription has expired, which is true of a lot of people who cover politics, that makes Paul boring old news. Let’s cover somebody more fun.
And related to that point, big changes attract news coverage. Bachmann winning was significant for her campaign, Perry’s announcement may change things for the other contenders. Pawlenty was done after finishing a distant third. Paul did the same thing he did in 2008: lose.
“Salon” has a reasonable take on this.
They basically argue that Ron Paul’s positioning in the straw poll doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. Ron Paul has a small but fervent group of supporters who can influence relatively low volume/high visibility opinion surveys like the Iowa straw poll. But that doesn’t carry over into more widespread popularity. So it’s not really news that he did well in Iowa. It would be news if he were polling very well in New Hampshire.
On the other hand, Bachmann doing well in Iowa indicates that she’s well-funded and organized enough to be a creditable (for some values of the word) candidate – something that until now was not well-established.
Of course, I have no idea why any news broadcast mentioned Huntsman. But there’s probably no enthusiasm in the Republican machine for Ron Paul which means that the commentators saying it’s between Bachmann, Perry and Romney are probably right. (Of course, I’m guessing the back-room boys are far from thrilled at the prospect of trying to get Bachmann or Perry elected.)
Whether you agree or disagree with him, this is the only guy with no dirty laundry and a consistent track record, voting record, no ‘flip-flopping’, ad infinitum. Yet, he’s ignored with any chance possible and his stories manipulated to the point where people think he is no longer relevant and/or is a lunatic. Well, that isn’t the case. And it’s time some people wake up to these facts.
Daily Show Exposes Blatant Ron Paul Media Blackouts 8/15/11t
…
Ron Paul supporters decry media neglect
Ron Paul remains media poison
Ron Paul’s Team Calls Coverage ‘Disappointing, but Not That Surprising’
Candy Crowley Lies About Ron Paul Polls
CNN Lies Poll Reports Ron Paul Winner AND Loser? RT & Alex Jones
Ron Paul Unelectable?
Media Caught Faking Ron Paul CPAC Win Reaction
Jon Stewart asking Bill O’Reilly about Ron Paul
Corporate Media Attempts to Marginalize Ron Paul by Ignoring Him - Skip to 5:03
“Ron Paul Is Not Going To Be President Of The United States”
Merged EpicNonsense’s post into this thread and edited the thread title for clarity.
I am curious how the “lamestream” Republican media can ignore Ron Paul yet love Bachmann and Palin. He’s certainly no more fringe or loony than either of those two. Could it be because he’s not as pretty as them (or Rick Perry or Mitt Romney)?
Ron Paul ought to have been considered as serious a candidate as any of the others, at least to open the season. He has experience with government, he has supporters, he has campaign funding. He deserves to have his ideas aired on equal terms and more importantly the people deserve to hear the full range of ideas on offer. If nothing else, a greater diversity of views in the debate helps to clarify where each of the other candidates stands. The media outlets that have ignored Ron Paul have done democracy a disservice, even if we accept the proposition that he never had a snowball’s chance of actually winning.
The same argument applies for people like Gravel, Nader and Kucinich in years past, BTW. The people should tell the media which candidates are significant, not the other way round.
He’s not as excited about blowing up feriners either. That’s one of the GOP planks, after all.
-Joe
He’s not a drama queen begging for attention. He just say’s it like it is and isn’t afraid to tell the truth. Thing is, simple truth is difficult to understand for some people, and they don’t understand the logic behind it all.
And besides, unlike the other candidates, which have a million questionable aspects about them, and their consistent contradictions in statements and positions over time, who wouldn’t want to talk about them… They’re the joke here, not Paul.
Of course, news is just the new platform for entertainment. So don’t expect them to be serious about anything. This is exactly why people have become so dumbed down they believe the crap portrayed in The Onion.
But it’s okay. MSM can promote their puppets to all of the disconnect of America, and the grassroots will be their to carry Paul to the top of the mountain.
They’ve been trying to hide an elephant in the room, but now people see it.
He’s also less of an overt Christian, isn’t he?
I agree with the broader point here, which is that the political press plays a large role in shaping the landscape and either somehow doesn’t know this, or just doesn’t pay attention to it. And Stewart is right that it’s odd that Paul seems to be the odd man out when everyone else has to try much harder to campaign to the fiscal part of the Tea Party than he does.
The problem with the Ron Paul resume you’ve posted is that it sounds better on paper than it really is: he’s served for a long time in Congress, but he’s always been on the fringes of his party and he’s still there, he gets re-elected biannually from a very conservative district in Texas where the GOP nominee is always going to win, and he has a small group of very diehard supporters (which is where the funding comes from) but doesn’t appeal to bigger swaths of the electorate. That’s not nothing - Bachmann’s done little in office and gets TV cameras because they know every time she talks, she says something that is absolutely insane - but it doesn’t mean he can compete with the other candidates on a national scale. You saw how he did in 2008. Even though it’s a different campaign, his ceiling (to borrow a sports term) is not much higher than where he is now. That’s one reason he’s less exciting to the press. Ignoring a second-place finish is way out of line, but let’s also not fall for the two extremes here: that the media ignores Paul or that he has a chance to win.
He received a ton of news coverage in 2008 and he was never even in contention. For a guy with no shot at winning the nomination, he’s received plenty of attention. Tim Pawlenty would kill to be mistreated the way Ron Paul is mistreated. And just for the record:
While he’s right on some issues, taken in total, he is rather nutty.
Yeah, man, you’ve got it now - the news media runs the country, and now that The Daily Show spent two minutes talking about Ron Paul to a liberal audience on cable, the Republican Party is sure to elect him.
Nutty?
If you’re going to label him as ‘nutty’ the rest should be labeled as batshit crazy.
Just sayin.
I’m quite comfortable with that.
Who ever said that 2 minutes of coverage would guarantee anything?
I’m speaking in terms of what I know is happening around the world, not just some blip on The Daily Show.
This Daily Show clip is just the tip of the iceberg, and it’s going to lead to more and more this bias corruption being dismantled.
Whatever your position is, is your own choice. I am simply saying that, presently, with what I know, there is far more support for Paul than any of these other shills.
How?
What is “bias corruption” and how does it get dismantled? And why does this sound exactly like what Paul supporters were saying in 2008 (when he didn’t win anything)? In the grander scheme, why does it sound more like religious belief than anything rooted in political reality or even speculation?
Except in Republican presidential primaries, where he always loses. Would you agree that’s an obstacle?