Great piece on why the media is suppressing Ron Paul
08-18-2011, 12:18 PM
#2
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Great article. My big concern is where his footing goes after the daily show. Fox News won't give him time, NBC won't give him time, CNN is "over", no one watches CBS or ABC...so how does he keep going?
I also have no doubt that even if he won the votes for the RNC nomination, they'd still pick 2nd place over him because he's too much of a threat to the corporate interests of both sides.
I also have no doubt that even if he won the votes for the RNC nomination, they'd still pick 2nd place over him because he's too much of a threat to the corporate interests of both sides.
Reply
0
0
08-18-2011, 12:38 PM
#4
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
It is so cliche as to be laughable how some people always mistake greed for conspiracy.
Have you ever heard the phrase "If it bleeds, it leads"? News directors and other media producers make decisions about what to present based on what they believe will attract and captivate the audience. Some do this by deliberately generating controversy (eg: "conservative" talk radio, Jerry Springer, etc) while others take the only slightly more noble path of focusing on that which is novel and interesting. Even if a person watches a certain news show only because they passionately and violently disagree with what is being said, that person still counts in the ratings. (eg: my grandmother, a devout democrat bordering on socialist and who practically believed that Barack Obama was the second-coming of Christ, had Fox News blaring on the TV practically 24 hours a day. People like her are News Corp's "best" viewers.)
Ron Paul is an old white man who has been politicking for three decades. That is not new or interesting.
Michele Bachmann is a young and relatively inexperienced woman who speaks freely about her personal religious views and is running for President of the United States. That IS new and interesting.
In other words, the "issues" don't really matter all that much. Broadcasters and newspaper editors learned many decades ago that you "sell the sizzle, not the steak."
Have you ever heard the phrase "If it bleeds, it leads"? News directors and other media producers make decisions about what to present based on what they believe will attract and captivate the audience. Some do this by deliberately generating controversy (eg: "conservative" talk radio, Jerry Springer, etc) while others take the only slightly more noble path of focusing on that which is novel and interesting. Even if a person watches a certain news show only because they passionately and violently disagree with what is being said, that person still counts in the ratings. (eg: my grandmother, a devout democrat bordering on socialist and who practically believed that Barack Obama was the second-coming of Christ, had Fox News blaring on the TV practically 24 hours a day. People like her are News Corp's "best" viewers.)
Ron Paul is an old white man who has been politicking for three decades. That is not new or interesting.
Michele Bachmann is a young and relatively inexperienced woman who speaks freely about her personal religious views and is running for President of the United States. That IS new and interesting.
In other words, the "issues" don't really matter all that much. Broadcasters and newspaper editors learned many decades ago that you "sell the sizzle, not the steak."
Reply
0
0
08-18-2011, 01:11 PM
#5
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Michele Bachmann is a young and relatively inexperienced woman who speaks freely about her personal religious views and is running for President of the United States. That IS new and interesting.
In other words, the "issues" don't really matter all that much. Broadcasters and newspaper editors learned many decades ago that you "sell the sizzle, not the steak."
In other words, the "issues" don't really matter all that much. Broadcasters and newspaper editors learned many decades ago that you "sell the sizzle, not the steak."
Reply
0
0
08-18-2011, 01:18 PM
#6
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
As a person who has voted for Ron Paul in the past (as the "least bad" option), I actually have to agree with Joe to a large degree. I do think it is something of a self-fullfilling cycle, though. Ron Paul is marginalized and not different, so he gets no media coverage which marginalizes him and suggests he is not newsworthy.
Dr. Paul's real problem these days is that he is not telegenic enough or, as Joe alludes to, superficially novel enough. He is certainly novel in terms of consistency and prescription.
Dr. Paul's real problem these days is that he is not telegenic enough or, as Joe alludes to, superficially novel enough. He is certainly novel in terms of consistency and prescription.
Reply
0
0
08-18-2011, 01:18 PM
#7
Ron Paul is an old white man who has been politicking for three decades. That is not new or interesting.
Michele Bachmann is a young and relatively inexperienced woman who speaks freely about her personal religious views and is running for President of the United States. That IS new and interesting.
In other words, the "issues" don't really matter all that much. Broadcasters and newspaper editors learned many decades ago that you "sell the sizzle, not the steak."
Michele Bachmann is a young and relatively inexperienced woman who speaks freely about her personal religious views and is running for President of the United States. That IS new and interesting.
In other words, the "issues" don't really matter all that much. Broadcasters and newspaper editors learned many decades ago that you "sell the sizzle, not the steak."
In other words, it's not simply that the media is ignoring Ron Paul because he doesn't sell newspapers (or generate advertising dollars), it's that the media is actively insisting to anyone who will listen that Ron Paul is actually unimportant and unworthy of the viewer's consideration.
Reply
0
0
08-18-2011, 01:34 PM
#8
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
The Candidate is a 1972 American film starring Robert Redford. Its themes include how the political machine corrupts. There are many parallels between the then-recent 1970 California Senate election between John V. Tunney and George Murphy; however, Redford's character Bill McKay is a political novice while Tunney was a seasoned congressman. The film serves mainly to show how a race for a seat in the Senate develops.
PLOT
Marvin Lucas, a political election specialist, is given the unenviable task of finding a Democratic candidate to unseat California U.S. Senator Crocker Jarmon, a popular Republican. With no big-name Democrat eager to enter the seemingly unwinnable race, Lucas seeks out Bill McKay, a thirty-something, married, attractive man who couldn’t be further removed from politics. Despite being the son of former governor John J. McKay, Bill was never interested in politics and instead acts as a lawyer for liberal causes.
Lucas gives McKay a blunt proposition: Jarmon can’t lose; and since the race is already decided, McKay is free to hit the campaign trail and say exactly what he wants because none of it matters anyway. Though he now knows he will definitely lose, McKay accepts the proposition because it gives him the chance to speak to groups of people and spread his liberal values (which include support for abortion rights, busing, environmental regulation, and welfare). He rejects help or involvement from his father, wanting to make it on his own steam.
McKay hits the campaign trail and begins courting voters. His team of campaign staffers start airing pro-McKay commercials while creating ads designed to make Jarmon look old and weary. With no serious Democratic opposition, McKay cruises to the Democratic nomination on his name alone. He is then confronted by Lucas, who has distressing news: According to the latest election projections, McKay is set to be defeated by an overwhelming margin come November. While McKay counted on losing, he never counted on being “humiliated” – and the recent primary win means he can no longer back out and quit the race. Worried by a possible blowout, he agrees to start “broadening” his message to appeal to more voters.
Throughout the next several months, McKay travels the state and campaigns, with his liberal statements eroding each day. His early support of abortion rights and gun control fade to mush, while his stump speech is reduced to the same few clichés and a new slogan: "For a better way: Bill McKay!" The new approach causes McKay to gain in the public opinion polls, but he has a new problem. Because McKay’s father has stayed completely out of the race, the media speculates that such silence is actually an endorsement of Jarmon. McKay begrudgingly meets his father and tells him the problem. McKay's father then tells the media he is not endorsing Jarmon, simply honoring his son’s wishes to stay out of the race. As McKay continues to do as he’s told (rather than say what’s in his heart), he continues to gain in the polls. As the campaign continues, McKay suddenly becomes self-aware that he is being manipulated and yells at Lucas to explain what the campaign has become. Though Lucas never verbalizes it, it’s evident that, in his wisdom, Lucas saw McKay as an unpolished gem – a candidate who began with things you couldn’t buy: good looks, confidence and massive name recognition. Lucas then counted on molding McKay as the months went along. Lucas tells McKay that the shift in election strategy isn’t important. What is important, he says, is that McKay is now only nine points down – so close, in fact, that Jarmon proposed a debate. Lucas says the debate will provide a chance to close the last gap in the polls. McKay, somewhat resigned to his new course of strategy, agrees to give tailored answers in the debate, rather than his real opinions.
The debate happens, and the two candidates trade barbs, with McKay the slight winner overall. Just as the debate is ending, McKay has a pang of conscience and blurts out that the debate didn’t address any real subjects, such as poverty and race. Lucas and his staffers are furious, knowing this outburst will hurt the campaign. The media go to confront McKay backstage about his remarks but arrive just as John J. McKay appears and vigorously congratulates his son on the debate, apparently having been very impressed with the honesty McKay showed at the end (but probably, as a seasoned politician, actually pulling the stunt to deflect from his son's political gaffe). Instead of the media reporting on McKay’s outburst, the story becomes the reemergence of former Gov. McKay to help his son. The positive story, coupled with McKay’s father’s help on the campaign trail, puts things neck and neck with Jarmon.
Election day arrives and volunteers canvass to get out the vote. McKay, meanwhile, has strayed so far from his original values that he’s in a hotel room slightly confused. The votes are counted and McKay wins. In one of the movie’s more famous scenes, McKay escapes the victory party and pulls Lucas into a room while throngs of journalists clamor outside. McKay then asks Lucas: “Marvin ... What do we do now?” The media throng arrives to drag them out at that moment and McKay never receives an answer.
PLOT
Marvin Lucas, a political election specialist, is given the unenviable task of finding a Democratic candidate to unseat California U.S. Senator Crocker Jarmon, a popular Republican. With no big-name Democrat eager to enter the seemingly unwinnable race, Lucas seeks out Bill McKay, a thirty-something, married, attractive man who couldn’t be further removed from politics. Despite being the son of former governor John J. McKay, Bill was never interested in politics and instead acts as a lawyer for liberal causes.
Lucas gives McKay a blunt proposition: Jarmon can’t lose; and since the race is already decided, McKay is free to hit the campaign trail and say exactly what he wants because none of it matters anyway. Though he now knows he will definitely lose, McKay accepts the proposition because it gives him the chance to speak to groups of people and spread his liberal values (which include support for abortion rights, busing, environmental regulation, and welfare). He rejects help or involvement from his father, wanting to make it on his own steam.
McKay hits the campaign trail and begins courting voters. His team of campaign staffers start airing pro-McKay commercials while creating ads designed to make Jarmon look old and weary. With no serious Democratic opposition, McKay cruises to the Democratic nomination on his name alone. He is then confronted by Lucas, who has distressing news: According to the latest election projections, McKay is set to be defeated by an overwhelming margin come November. While McKay counted on losing, he never counted on being “humiliated” – and the recent primary win means he can no longer back out and quit the race. Worried by a possible blowout, he agrees to start “broadening” his message to appeal to more voters.
Throughout the next several months, McKay travels the state and campaigns, with his liberal statements eroding each day. His early support of abortion rights and gun control fade to mush, while his stump speech is reduced to the same few clichés and a new slogan: "For a better way: Bill McKay!" The new approach causes McKay to gain in the public opinion polls, but he has a new problem. Because McKay’s father has stayed completely out of the race, the media speculates that such silence is actually an endorsement of Jarmon. McKay begrudgingly meets his father and tells him the problem. McKay's father then tells the media he is not endorsing Jarmon, simply honoring his son’s wishes to stay out of the race. As McKay continues to do as he’s told (rather than say what’s in his heart), he continues to gain in the polls. As the campaign continues, McKay suddenly becomes self-aware that he is being manipulated and yells at Lucas to explain what the campaign has become. Though Lucas never verbalizes it, it’s evident that, in his wisdom, Lucas saw McKay as an unpolished gem – a candidate who began with things you couldn’t buy: good looks, confidence and massive name recognition. Lucas then counted on molding McKay as the months went along. Lucas tells McKay that the shift in election strategy isn’t important. What is important, he says, is that McKay is now only nine points down – so close, in fact, that Jarmon proposed a debate. Lucas says the debate will provide a chance to close the last gap in the polls. McKay, somewhat resigned to his new course of strategy, agrees to give tailored answers in the debate, rather than his real opinions.
The debate happens, and the two candidates trade barbs, with McKay the slight winner overall. Just as the debate is ending, McKay has a pang of conscience and blurts out that the debate didn’t address any real subjects, such as poverty and race. Lucas and his staffers are furious, knowing this outburst will hurt the campaign. The media go to confront McKay backstage about his remarks but arrive just as John J. McKay appears and vigorously congratulates his son on the debate, apparently having been very impressed with the honesty McKay showed at the end (but probably, as a seasoned politician, actually pulling the stunt to deflect from his son's political gaffe). Instead of the media reporting on McKay’s outburst, the story becomes the reemergence of former Gov. McKay to help his son. The positive story, coupled with McKay’s father’s help on the campaign trail, puts things neck and neck with Jarmon.
Election day arrives and volunteers canvass to get out the vote. McKay, meanwhile, has strayed so far from his original values that he’s in a hotel room slightly confused. The votes are counted and McKay wins. In one of the movie’s more famous scenes, McKay escapes the victory party and pulls Lucas into a room while throngs of journalists clamor outside. McKay then asks Lucas: “Marvin ... What do we do now?” The media throng arrives to drag them out at that moment and McKay never receives an answer.
Reply
0
0
08-19-2011, 11:11 AM
#14
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
Still, my vote would be with Adama in 2012.
(That is, unless we see Baltar / Six on the ticket.)
edit: "A hard six?"
Reply
0
0
08-20-2011, 02:06 PM
#16
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Why the knee jerk reaction at the word "conspiracy", or anything that might sort of vaguely resemble a "conspiracy" if you look at it sideways?
The dictionary def'n of the word is "2 or more persons planning or carrying out an illegal or immoral act". So Madoff and company conspired to bilk investors of millions. Enron and Anderson conspired to cook the books.
- greed is usually what drives people to conspire.
Watch the video again, see the headlines and the statements:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...--the-top-tier
The newsies from different networks all have the same line, and the same smirk. They all skip over Ron Paul's name. They say "Ames straw poll" blah blah "top tier has emerged, Bachmann, Perry, Romney".
"It's all about the ratings. It's just business".
So how does skipping over Ron Paul's name help ratings?
Why is Ron Paul less newsworthy than Polenty and the others?
Why is any "conspiracy" that involves individuals in the Federal Gov't, automatically impossible? Why is it that if in a small town, the sheriff, judge, and mayor are corrupt, work together, and conspire, it's believable, but if one says there's an Ole Boys' Club in DC, it's "tinhat"?
Does anyone disagree that Ron Paul is a threat to the status quo in DC because he wants to cut the size of the Fed Gov and the military?
Consider that there’s a loose Ole Boys’ Club comprised of Fat Cat Big-Media/Pharma/Defense corporate board types, who rub elbows with politicians. They all benefit from the status quo. The media owners can give general guidelines to the editors of these news outlets, who do have day-to-day power to tell the news talking heads (who are actors, not journos), what to say and not say. These editors are highly paid; either they are part of the same club, or are drinking the KoolAid. Or perhaps they know "something's up" but know that if they don't follow said guidelines, they'll lose their cushy jobs and will never find the same work again.
Is that not plausible? Or is that "conspiracy theory", and therefore must be automatically dismissed?
Perhaps you think the allegations of "conspiracy" assume a single hierarchical structure that controls everything that happens in the world. That is silly, and is as naive as thinking that "in gov't, no conspiracies can exist".
The dictionary def'n of the word is "2 or more persons planning or carrying out an illegal or immoral act". So Madoff and company conspired to bilk investors of millions. Enron and Anderson conspired to cook the books.
"Greed is confused with conspiracy"
Watch the video again, see the headlines and the statements:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...--the-top-tier
The newsies from different networks all have the same line, and the same smirk. They all skip over Ron Paul's name. They say "Ames straw poll" blah blah "top tier has emerged, Bachmann, Perry, Romney".
"It's all about the ratings. It's just business".
"Palin and Bachmann are new, Ron Paul's been around and isn't newsworthy".
Why is any "conspiracy" that involves individuals in the Federal Gov't, automatically impossible? Why is it that if in a small town, the sheriff, judge, and mayor are corrupt, work together, and conspire, it's believable, but if one says there's an Ole Boys' Club in DC, it's "tinhat"?
Does anyone disagree that Ron Paul is a threat to the status quo in DC because he wants to cut the size of the Fed Gov and the military?
Consider that there’s a loose Ole Boys’ Club comprised of Fat Cat Big-Media/Pharma/Defense corporate board types, who rub elbows with politicians. They all benefit from the status quo. The media owners can give general guidelines to the editors of these news outlets, who do have day-to-day power to tell the news talking heads (who are actors, not journos), what to say and not say. These editors are highly paid; either they are part of the same club, or are drinking the KoolAid. Or perhaps they know "something's up" but know that if they don't follow said guidelines, they'll lose their cushy jobs and will never find the same work again.
Is that not plausible? Or is that "conspiracy theory", and therefore must be automatically dismissed?
Perhaps you think the allegations of "conspiracy" assume a single hierarchical structure that controls everything that happens in the world. That is silly, and is as naive as thinking that "in gov't, no conspiracies can exist".
Reply
0
0
08-20-2011, 02:07 PM
#17
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Here's a great book on how the various factions of power push and pull and operate in government:
http://mises.org/daily/5345/In-a-Rel...ts-Complicated
http://mises.org/daily/5345/In-a-Rel...ts-Complicated
The idea that corporate interests, banking elites, and politicians conspire to set US policy is at once obvious and beyond the pale. Everyone knows that the military-industrial complex is fat and corrupt, that presidents bestow money and privilege on their donors and favored businesses, that a revolving door connects Wall Street and the White House, and that economic motivations lurk behind America's wars. But to make too fine a point of this is typically dismissed as unserious conspiracy theorizing, unworthy of mainstream consideration.
We have seen this paradox at work in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse. The left-liberals blame Wall Street and Big Finance for betraying the masses out of predatory greed and for being rewarded for their irresponsibility by Washington's bailouts. At the same time, the Left appears reluctant to oppose these bailouts outright, seeing the spending as a necessary evil to return the global economy to stability, however inequitably. What's more, left-liberals fail to call out President Obama and Democratic leaders for their undeniable hand in all this. They blame Goldman Sachs but see their president, who got more campaign money from the firm than from almost any other source, as a helpless victim of circumstance, rather than an energetic conspirator in corporate malfeasance on top of being the enthusiastic heir and expansionist of George W. Bush's aggressive foreign policy.
The tea-party Right is also hesitant to examine the corporate state too closely. These conservatives detect an elitism in Obama's governance but are loath to earnestly challenge the economic status quo, for it would lead to uncomfortable questions about the warfare state, defense contractors, US wars, the whole history of the Republican Party, and all the typical right-wing assumptions about the inherent fairness of America's supposedly "free-enterprise" system. By refusing to admit that economic fundamentals were unsound through the entirety of the Bush years — by failing to acknowledge the imperial reality of US wars and their debilitating effect on the average household budget — the Right is forgoing its chance to delve beyond the surface in its criticism of Obama's reign.
We have seen this paradox at work in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse. The left-liberals blame Wall Street and Big Finance for betraying the masses out of predatory greed and for being rewarded for their irresponsibility by Washington's bailouts. At the same time, the Left appears reluctant to oppose these bailouts outright, seeing the spending as a necessary evil to return the global economy to stability, however inequitably. What's more, left-liberals fail to call out President Obama and Democratic leaders for their undeniable hand in all this. They blame Goldman Sachs but see their president, who got more campaign money from the firm than from almost any other source, as a helpless victim of circumstance, rather than an energetic conspirator in corporate malfeasance on top of being the enthusiastic heir and expansionist of George W. Bush's aggressive foreign policy.
The tea-party Right is also hesitant to examine the corporate state too closely. These conservatives detect an elitism in Obama's governance but are loath to earnestly challenge the economic status quo, for it would lead to uncomfortable questions about the warfare state, defense contractors, US wars, the whole history of the Republican Party, and all the typical right-wing assumptions about the inherent fairness of America's supposedly "free-enterprise" system. By refusing to admit that economic fundamentals were unsound through the entirety of the Bush years — by failing to acknowledge the imperial reality of US wars and their debilitating effect on the average household budget — the Right is forgoing its chance to delve beyond the surface in its criticism of Obama's reign.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
