 |
|
Censoring The Paul Campaign |
|
Arguably The Largest Grass Roots Base In The GOP |
|
Why Does The Media Go Out of Its Way To
Censor Ron Paul? The Iowa Republican straw poll has once again called into question the media's roll in manipulating public opinion. After finishing a very close second to poll winner Michele Bachman, the media has totally ignored Ron Paul in favor of much lesser candidates. Even though Paul was only 152 votes from winning the top spot, the corporate news media, and even the Republican party, talked of much farther distant candidates instead. Paul's finish with Bachman was essentially a near tie. He had a 2-to-1 lead over his next closest rival, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and a 6-to-1 lead over Texas Governor Rick Perry, but you wouldn't know it from listening to the corporate owned news media, or the Sunday morning pundit shows. Paul's Iowa finish was, for all intents and purposes, essentially dismissed out of hand by the news media. Instead, the media has focused on 1) Palin-wannabe Bachman, who claims she was told to run for president by God, and 2) Perry, who has recently proclaimed himself to be a prophet. These are claims the media of old would have had a field day with, yet in today's corporate news landscape they are accepted with very little question. The final results of the Iowa Republican straw poll were as follows: Bachmann (4,823), Paul (4,671), Pawlenty (2,293), Santorum (1,657), Cain (1,456), Perry (718 write-in votes), Romney (567), Gingrich (385), Huntsman (69), and McCotter (35). What is it about Paul that the corporate news media, and even his own party, have against him? If you read Brian Montopoli, the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com, he admittedly states in his August 16th column, Is Ron Paul getting unfair media treatment?... "Critics of the media coverage of Paul have a point," but he then immediately follows that statement up by claiming, "Because many reporters see the Texas congressman as having little chance of winning the nomination, he is often left out of the discussion - even as an establishment figure like Jon Huntsman, who badly trails Paul in the polls, is included." Since when is it the job of news reporters to decide who is going to win an election? Aren't they supposed to merely report the facts and then let us decide? This is just more proof that our corporate controlled media is not out to give us the truth, but to lead us in the direction that their corporate masters have dictated. According to CBS' Montoploi, "Paul's relatively strong standing in early polls, this argument goes, will fade as the field narrows around one or two more mainstream candidates." How Mr, Montopoli can make such an ignorant assessment, being an alleged political reporter, is quite baffling, especially in light of Paul's undeniably solid grass roots showing in the 2008 Presidential primaries. Montopoli goes on to say, "...while Paul was shut out of the Sunday news shows after his near-straw poll victory, Bachmann was invited into almost all of them - and is now being treated by the media as one of the three frontrunners for the nomination." Clearly he doesn't sincerely question the integrity of this media snub as much as he accepts it. The CBS political correspondent then admits that, "Most reporters also don't expect Bachmann to win the nomination." He adds, "Even though her chances of winning are slim... she's simply a better story - controversial, telegenic, and relatively new to the national scene. Paul, meanwhile, is on his third presidential run, and he's saying the same things he's been saying for decades - which is admirable, but not ideal in a media landscape where freshness is what gets attention." Does anyone else see the absurdity in this? Here is a member of the corporate media machine admitting that being "telegenic" and "freshness" makes for a more viable candidate, versus someone who doesn't flip-flop on the issues, sticks to his guns, and consistently keeps delivering the right message. A "better story" is apparently worth more to the media than reporting on the better candidate. At least Montopoli shamelessly concedes that this is what the media deems to be the selling points that matter most to them in presenting political news coverage. The Daily Show's Jon Stewart, voted more trustworthy than today's network anchors, did not miss the absurdity in all of this. "He's the one guy in the field - agree with him or don't agree with him - who doesn't go out of his way to regurgitate talking points or change what he believes to fit the audience in front of (him)," said Stewart. Once again, what is it about Ron Paul that has the media running away from him? Even Republican promotional network FOX News goes out of its way to deceive its viewers and lie about Paul's candidacy. Why would any organization deliberately hold a candidate down when they have the best chance at success in an election? Paul, like his Democratic counterpart Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH), were by far and away "the choice of the people" for their respective parties for president in 2008. The problem was, the parties themselves did not want them, instead ignoring the voice of the people by refusing to acknowledge them publicly as politically viable candidates, limiting them from full participation in the debates, if not shutting them out entirely. The latter was most certainly the case for Kucinich who, despite his grass roots popular support, was banned from many debates. NBC even went so far as to lie to the Nevada Supreme Court to hold Kucinich out of the Nevada debate. The company that owned NBC, General Electric, is also one of the foremost manufacturers and proponents for nuclear power plants, and one can certainly speculate that it was not in their best interest to have Kucinich talking on-air about Nevada's Yucca Mountain and the sensitive statewide issue of nuclear waste. So now we shift from 2008 to the 2012 presidential race and again the media news machine is at it once more, downplaying the significance of a leading candidate. Again... what is it about Paul that scares these people? In a nutshell, three things: Number one, Paul's staunch support for dismantling the Federal Reserve is one of the reasons. It is the one and only issue that he is passionate about that no one from the Republican party would ever before dare espouse, embrace, or entertain in any way, until recent last minute comments from both Bachman and Perry who each are now clearly offering lip service to a position that Ron Paul has been an undisputed champion for and a leader of for decades. Number two, his anti-war stance, publicly decrying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since their inception. Once again, a position that few in the GOP will staunchly consider or fight for. These were both wars that Bush-Cheney led us into, so no one will buck the party line such as Paul has consistently done. Number three, his conviction to following the U.S. Constitution, which flies in the face of the Bush Doctrine, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, and secret plans (REX 84) to ignore Posse Comitatus laws in the U.S. Once you understand these three points, that both he and Kucinich adhere to in defense of "we the people," you will better see the real reasons why he is feared by the current political and corporate power structure. Quite simply, Ron Paul is not on board with the current fascist makeover of the U.S. being pushed previously by both Bush I and II, and now Obama. Paul is a threat to their plan for a North American Union, as well as the New World Order. This reporter does not exactly agree with all of Paul's positions on social programs, however, any candidate willing to heal this nation and reclaim our stolen national sovereignty by dissolving a corrupt Federal Reserve System is certainly more than worthy of consideration as a candidate for president. The last U.S. president who had the integrity and the guts to stand up to this cabal of ultra-wealthy multi-billionaires was John F. Kennedy. It's way past time that we elect another president who is more than willing to take up the baton where Kennedy left off. Perhaps the internet response of danielbeatya to CBS News' Brian Montopoli says it best... "All this shows me and others is that if Ron Paul scares you that bad then - he must gonna be real good for America." Considering that the only real "change" we received from the 2008 election is what little we have left in our pockets, it would seem apparent that the prudent thing for "we the people" would be to ignore the corporate media and pay more attention to a message that they appear desperate to keep from us. Ignore the corporate news shills and the paid-off political pundits who are out to sway your opinion and instead pay attention to the one man whose passion is to protect our Constitution, rather than discarding it. My hope is that Ron Paul steps away from the mainstream political trap and runs as an independent, biting back at the GOP party that appears to do everything it can to run from him and distance his campaign with conservatives. A strong independent run from Paul would be a political force to be reckoned with and would be a step in the right direction for a country clearly caught in the two-party political trap that enslaves us all, not to mention a fitting payback to a Republican party that refuses to support his candidacy. A Ron Paul / Dennis Kucinich ticket would be pretty attractive to those disillusioned with the current DNC-GOP system. A Paul/Ventura ticket wouldn't be bad either. After the 2008 presidential campaign, and now 2012, one thing is glaringly apparent, Ron Paul clearly scares the current corrupt power structure that has fleeced this country for so many years, and that fear is looking pretty damn good to quite a few Americans right about now.
Return to
NewsFocus.org |
