Conspiracy Against Ron Paul

[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

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

It’s a conspiracy… Yeah, only little known, alternative news outlets like CNN.com covered this :

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/paul.fundraising.ap/index.html

Give me a break.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

It’s a conspiracy… Yeah, only little known, alternative news outlets like CNN.com covered this :

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/paul.fundraising.ap/index.html

Give me a break.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

It’s a conspiracy… Yeah, only little known, alternative news outlets like CNN.com covered this :

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/paul.fundraising.ap/index.html

Give me a break.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

It’s a conspiracy… Yeah, only little known, alternative news outlets like CNN.com covered this :

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/paul.fundraising.ap/index.html

Give me a break.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

It’s a conspiracy… Yeah, only little known, alternative news outlets like CNN.com covered this :

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/paul.fundraising.ap/index.html

Give me a break.

[Jason]

XBoxBoy, your points are well taken.

I think you might be referring to this story in the LA Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/rp.html

The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul has not gotten the media focus he deserves, but maybe that will start to change now. I still think there is some wariness on the part of the media to focus on him because he is the only anti-war Republican. I still believe the media has an aversion to “rocking the boat” when it comes to what it perceives as public opinion. It’s possible the bulk of news media is still afraid to show anti-war opinions for fear of alienating viewers, however incorrect an assumption that may be.

Bear in mind also, that Ron Paul is much closer in ideology to the archetypical Republican of 20 or 30 years ago. He is the only one in the running with those positions! The mainstream of the Republican party has moved in recent years into more religious and war-making political positions. I believe many conservative voters are really pulling for Ron Paul and that’s why his contributions are starting to spike. I see “Google Ron Paul” signs everywhere now. His run is turning into a netroots campaign.

Also note that you see a similar candidate media “blindness” when it comes to the Democrats. Everyone focuses on Clinton/Obama while even relatively high polling candidates like Edwards get virtually no TV news coverage.

[Jason]

XBoxBoy, your points are well taken.

I think you might be referring to this story in the LA Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/rp.html

The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul has not gotten the media focus he deserves, but maybe that will start to change now. I still think there is some wariness on the part of the media to focus on him because he is the only anti-war Republican. I still believe the media has an aversion to “rocking the boat” when it comes to what it perceives as public opinion. It’s possible the bulk of news media is still afraid to show anti-war opinions for fear of alienating viewers, however incorrect an assumption that may be.

Bear in mind also, that Ron Paul is much closer in ideology to the archetypical Republican of 20 or 30 years ago. He is the only one in the running with those positions! The mainstream of the Republican party has moved in recent years into more religious and war-making political positions. I believe many conservative voters are really pulling for Ron Paul and that’s why his contributions are starting to spike. I see “Google Ron Paul” signs everywhere now. His run is turning into a netroots campaign.

Also note that you see a similar candidate media “blindness” when it comes to the Democrats. Everyone focuses on Clinton/Obama while even relatively high polling candidates like Edwards get virtually no TV news coverage.

[Jason]

XBoxBoy, your points are well taken.

I think you might be referring to this story in the LA Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/rp.html

The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul has not gotten the media focus he deserves, but maybe that will start to change now. I still think there is some wariness on the part of the media to focus on him because he is the only anti-war Republican. I still believe the media has an aversion to “rocking the boat” when it comes to what it perceives as public opinion. It’s possible the bulk of news media is still afraid to show anti-war opinions for fear of alienating viewers, however incorrect an assumption that may be.

Bear in mind also, that Ron Paul is much closer in ideology to the archetypical Republican of 20 or 30 years ago. He is the only one in the running with those positions! The mainstream of the Republican party has moved in recent years into more religious and war-making political positions. I believe many conservative voters are really pulling for Ron Paul and that’s why his contributions are starting to spike. I see “Google Ron Paul” signs everywhere now. His run is turning into a netroots campaign.

Also note that you see a similar candidate media “blindness” when it comes to the Democrats. Everyone focuses on Clinton/Obama while even relatively high polling candidates like Edwards get virtually no TV news coverage.

[Jason]

XBoxBoy, your points are well taken.

I think you might be referring to this story in the LA Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/rp.html

The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul has not gotten the media focus he deserves, but maybe that will start to change now. I still think there is some wariness on the part of the media to focus on him because he is the only anti-war Republican. I still believe the media has an aversion to “rocking the boat” when it comes to what it perceives as public opinion. It’s possible the bulk of news media is still afraid to show anti-war opinions for fear of alienating viewers, however incorrect an assumption that may be.

Bear in mind also, that Ron Paul is much closer in ideology to the archetypical Republican of 20 or 30 years ago. He is the only one in the running with those positions! The mainstream of the Republican party has moved in recent years into more religious and war-making political positions. I believe many conservative voters are really pulling for Ron Paul and that’s why his contributions are starting to spike. I see “Google Ron Paul” signs everywhere now. His run is turning into a netroots campaign.

Also note that you see a similar candidate media “blindness” when it comes to the Democrats. Everyone focuses on Clinton/Obama while even relatively high polling candidates like Edwards get virtually no TV news coverage.

[Jason]

XBoxBoy, your points are well taken.

I think you might be referring to this story in the LA Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/rp.html

The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul has not gotten the media focus he deserves, but maybe that will start to change now. I still think there is some wariness on the part of the media to focus on him because he is the only anti-war Republican. I still believe the media has an aversion to “rocking the boat” when it comes to what it perceives as public opinion. It’s possible the bulk of news media is still afraid to show anti-war opinions for fear of alienating viewers, however incorrect an assumption that may be.

Bear in mind also, that Ron Paul is much closer in ideology to the archetypical Republican of 20 or 30 years ago. He is the only one in the running with those positions! The mainstream of the Republican party has moved in recent years into more religious and war-making political positions. I believe many conservative voters are really pulling for Ron Paul and that’s why his contributions are starting to spike. I see “Google Ron Paul” signs everywhere now. His run is turning into a netroots campaign.

Also note that you see a similar candidate media “blindness” when it comes to the Democrats. Everyone focuses on Clinton/Obama while even relatively high polling candidates like Edwards get virtually no TV news coverage.

[Arraya]

All media in the US is controlled by like 5-6 people(from memory). It does not have to be a conspiracy that those 5-6 people can loosely control what is or is not highlighted by their corporations depending on their political ties. And I think it is safe to assume that if you are one of the controlling media mogels you have political ties. Maybe RP has not put a for sale sign on his back like the rest of the candidates hence no coverage. Kind of a systemic conspiracy….

[Arraya]

All media in the US is controlled by like 5-6 people(from memory). It does not have to be a conspiracy that those 5-6 people can loosely control what is or is not highlighted by their corporations depending on their political ties. And I think it is safe to assume that if you are one of the controlling media mogels you have political ties. Maybe RP has not put a for sale sign on his back like the rest of the candidates hence no coverage. Kind of a systemic conspiracy….

[Arraya]

All media in the US is controlled by like 5-6 people(from memory). It does not have to be a conspiracy that those 5-6 people can loosely control what is or is not highlighted by their corporations depending on their political ties. And I think it is safe to assume that if you are one of the controlling media mogels you have political ties. Maybe RP has not put a for sale sign on his back like the rest of the candidates hence no coverage. Kind of a systemic conspiracy….

[Arraya]

All media in the US is controlled by like 5-6 people(from memory). It does not have to be a conspiracy that those 5-6 people can loosely control what is or is not highlighted by their corporations depending on their political ties. And I think it is safe to assume that if you are one of the controlling media mogels you have political ties. Maybe RP has not put a for sale sign on his back like the rest of the candidates hence no coverage. Kind of a systemic conspiracy….

[Author]

Posts