Normally I'm not too into conspiracies. If there's anything my experience at UF has taught me, it's that history is complicated. The "official position" of the winners is usually wrong, and the conspiracy theorists are usually wrong. The answer often lies in between.
I can't help but feel like we're in the middle of a conspiracy when it comes to the media's coverage of Ron Paul. Ron Paul is monstrously popular on the internet and with young voters. See here for a YouTube video that represents it pretty well.
Mainstream media coverage of Paul is, well, appalling. His presence in the debates has been laughable. (Incidentally, watch the video at the end of that article and see how uncomfortable the other candidates are while Paul is speaking about the war in Iraq being unconstitutional and the need to address our foreign policy.) This article also sums up the situation nicely.
Seriously, I could go on and on about this. But the straw that broke the camel's back for me was this article from NPR . The article calls Ron Paul an iconoclast and assumes that he is going to get nowhere in the election. Despite this, they offer these stats:
- Last week, he raised $1.85 million in a 24-hour period.
- He's a superstar on YouTube with over 7 million viewers clicking on his offerings.
- Until Tuesday's Florida primary, Paul had beaten former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in Iowa, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina. Giuliani bested Paul in New Hampshire by 2,092 votes. (Paul campaigned in some of these states, while Giuliani focused mainly on Florida).
- Paul had captured 106,414 votes to Giuliani's 60,220 -- even though the press touted Giuliani as a frontrunner. (See NPR primary map)
- Paul came in second, albeit a distant second, in a field of seven Republicans in Nevada.
NPR says they've received over 200 individual emails complaining about the lack of coverage for Ron Paul (e.g. the fact that he's been mentioned only 160 times in the past six months -- that's not even once a day). Shockingly, they don't offer an apology in this article, they offer a defense:
"Yes, Paul has raised lots of money and has many dedicated supporters," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "That's all good, but even Ron Paul realizes he is not going to be the GOP presidential nominee. There is a happy golden mean of major and minor candidates somewhere. No one ever finds it's to everyone's satisfaction. The good news is that news organizations don't conspire."
NPR's Elving, a seasoned veteran of eight presidential races, said he is prepared to give Paul greater coverage when he is no longer an 'also-ran' in Republican primaries. "When and if he becomes an independent or third party candidate," said Elving, "he may become a far larger factor in the eventual general election outcome. At that point, news coverage will increase appropriately."
The number of comments left on the page indicate to me that it's not only conspiracy theorists that are upset with this.
Does anyone else find it strange that an anti-war, anti-tax, pro-life candidate who also happens to have a massive following is being dismissed almost entirely from the media? Whether you agree with his views or not (and I'm sure many disagree, as he can't really satisfy most Republicans or most Democrats), one would think he'd at least get a fair shake. It's not like his only supporters are his family or something.
Anyway, that's my two cents on the subject. I've heard this is also the case with Kucinich, but I don't know the details of that.
Peace,
Sam
No comments:
Post a Comment