Jason,
While I can follow your argument as to why the major news doesn’t cover all the candidates, I think it overlooks two important points. The first is that regardless of whether you think Ron Paul is good or bad, right or wrong, he is a very intriguing underdog story, and people love underdog stories. (Just look to Hollywood’s choice of film scripts for confirmation of that) And the second is that while polls don’t show Ron Paul in the top three, the amount of money (read potential advertising dollars) puts him way ahead. And if you measure the number of people actually giving money, he’s definitely the front runner.
All of this brings me back to the basic question I have, which is that if Ron Paul is an interesting story, one that will generate eyeballs to your website, and eyeballs equals ad revenue, then why aren’t they covering him.
So, am I wrong? Is Ron Paul a boring story which won’t bring eyeballs to your website, or people to your news broadcast? (Recent web activity on Ron Paul tends to make me think I’m right) Or am I wrong in thinking that news is driven by viewer ratings? And if I’m NOT wrong about those two things, then why don’t the major news outlets cover him more? It would just seem to be in their best interest.
Like I said, I have trouble with jumping on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, but I’m finding it really tough to find a compelling explanation of why the mainstream media is ignoring a story that has repeatedly shown it garners public interest.
