Conspiracy Against Ron Paul

[rankandfile]

Ron Paul has broken the single day fund raising record, pulling in $6.1 million on 12/16/2007. Wouldn’t you think that this would be something the major news outlets would want to cover? NO. Here are some of their top headlines as of the time of this post:

CNN.com:
“Report: Saudi king pardons rape victim”
“Lieberman endorses John McCain”
“Ticker: Huckabee: I’m not apologizing to Bush”
“French president visits Disney with ex-model”

FOX News.com:
“Obama fights Muslim rumors sweeping the internet”
“Saudi rape victim pardoned”
“Googling oneself is more popular, study says”
“Festivus Pole proposed after Wis. city displays Nativity”

All we need now is an update on Paris Hilton’s dog and Lindsay Lohan’s latest drunken escapade.

YouTube Ron Paul
Google Ron Paul

[XBoxBoy]

While I don’t like conspiracy theories, it is kinda curious as to why the mainstream media is covering Ron Paul so little.

You would think that with all these people giving money, the media would figure that’s eyeballs they can attract by running some stories about him. (People tend to like to read stories that reaffirm their beliefs) And attracting eyeballs is what seems be driving the running of a newsroom these days. But it sure doesn’t seem to be happening.

So short of the conspiracy theories, or claims that the mainstream news is bought off by political parties, does anyone have a good explanation of why the news is so regularly ignoring Ron Paul? Am I wrong that articles about Ron Paul would attract viewers?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

While I don’t like conspiracy theories, it is kinda curious as to why the mainstream media is covering Ron Paul so little.

You would think that with all these people giving money, the media would figure that’s eyeballs they can attract by running some stories about him. (People tend to like to read stories that reaffirm their beliefs) And attracting eyeballs is what seems be driving the running of a newsroom these days. But it sure doesn’t seem to be happening.

So short of the conspiracy theories, or claims that the mainstream news is bought off by political parties, does anyone have a good explanation of why the news is so regularly ignoring Ron Paul? Am I wrong that articles about Ron Paul would attract viewers?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

While I don’t like conspiracy theories, it is kinda curious as to why the mainstream media is covering Ron Paul so little.

You would think that with all these people giving money, the media would figure that’s eyeballs they can attract by running some stories about him. (People tend to like to read stories that reaffirm their beliefs) And attracting eyeballs is what seems be driving the running of a newsroom these days. But it sure doesn’t seem to be happening.

So short of the conspiracy theories, or claims that the mainstream news is bought off by political parties, does anyone have a good explanation of why the news is so regularly ignoring Ron Paul? Am I wrong that articles about Ron Paul would attract viewers?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

While I don’t like conspiracy theories, it is kinda curious as to why the mainstream media is covering Ron Paul so little.

You would think that with all these people giving money, the media would figure that’s eyeballs they can attract by running some stories about him. (People tend to like to read stories that reaffirm their beliefs) And attracting eyeballs is what seems be driving the running of a newsroom these days. But it sure doesn’t seem to be happening.

So short of the conspiracy theories, or claims that the mainstream news is bought off by political parties, does anyone have a good explanation of why the news is so regularly ignoring Ron Paul? Am I wrong that articles about Ron Paul would attract viewers?

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

While I don’t like conspiracy theories, it is kinda curious as to why the mainstream media is covering Ron Paul so little.

You would think that with all these people giving money, the media would figure that’s eyeballs they can attract by running some stories about him. (People tend to like to read stories that reaffirm their beliefs) And attracting eyeballs is what seems be driving the running of a newsroom these days. But it sure doesn’t seem to be happening.

So short of the conspiracy theories, or claims that the mainstream news is bought off by political parties, does anyone have a good explanation of why the news is so regularly ignoring Ron Paul? Am I wrong that articles about Ron Paul would attract viewers?

XBoxBoy

[Jason]

The reason so-called minor candidates don’t get coverage is a direct result of corporate media consolidation initiated by the Clinton administration. It only makes sense to give the bare minimum news coverage to the primary campaigns so they only cover the top two or three candidates that are polling the highest. Since their only concern is advertising revenue, they assume the majority of people won’t keep their eyes glued on the news long enough to digest coverage on ALL the candidates, therefore we don’t get the news we might otherwise need. If you’re only polling at 5%, that translates to too small a segment of the viewing audience, right?

[Jason]

The reason so-called minor candidates don’t get coverage is a direct result of corporate media consolidation initiated by the Clinton administration. It only makes sense to give the bare minimum news coverage to the primary campaigns so they only cover the top two or three candidates that are polling the highest. Since their only concern is advertising revenue, they assume the majority of people won’t keep their eyes glued on the news long enough to digest coverage on ALL the candidates, therefore we don’t get the news we might otherwise need. If you’re only polling at 5%, that translates to too small a segment of the viewing audience, right?

[Jason]

The reason so-called minor candidates don’t get coverage is a direct result of corporate media consolidation initiated by the Clinton administration. It only makes sense to give the bare minimum news coverage to the primary campaigns so they only cover the top two or three candidates that are polling the highest. Since their only concern is advertising revenue, they assume the majority of people won’t keep their eyes glued on the news long enough to digest coverage on ALL the candidates, therefore we don’t get the news we might otherwise need. If you’re only polling at 5%, that translates to too small a segment of the viewing audience, right?

[Jason]

The reason so-called minor candidates don’t get coverage is a direct result of corporate media consolidation initiated by the Clinton administration. It only makes sense to give the bare minimum news coverage to the primary campaigns so they only cover the top two or three candidates that are polling the highest. Since their only concern is advertising revenue, they assume the majority of people won’t keep their eyes glued on the news long enough to digest coverage on ALL the candidates, therefore we don’t get the news we might otherwise need. If you’re only polling at 5%, that translates to too small a segment of the viewing audience, right?

[Jason]

The reason so-called minor candidates don’t get coverage is a direct result of corporate media consolidation initiated by the Clinton administration. It only makes sense to give the bare minimum news coverage to the primary campaigns so they only cover the top two or three candidates that are polling the highest. Since their only concern is advertising revenue, they assume the majority of people won’t keep their eyes glued on the news long enough to digest coverage on ALL the candidates, therefore we don’t get the news we might otherwise need. If you’re only polling at 5%, that translates to too small a segment of the viewing audience, right?

[XBoxBoy]

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.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

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.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

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.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

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.

XBoxBoy

[Author]

Posts