This is pretty funny, and points out how blatant the mainstream news is:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...arch_multiline

 

cant view that site.

does it mirror this: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/enter...on-paul/41311/ ??

 

Yup, same segment, after the ad.

 

Because Ron Paul knows the difference between Capitalism and Corporitism.

Big Media wants to protect one of the two; guess which Ron Paul opposes.

 

It's pretty sad.

 

Ron Paul is anti war and anti gov't power, that's why the Republican Establishment hates him.

What's a bit puzzling is how the media owners exert that fine of editorial control over the news show writers. (The newscasters aren't journalists, they're basically talk show hosts)

 

Fair and Balanced, bros.


I'd vote for Ron Paul. Not just considering the alternatives, I think he'd be a good person for the job.

 

Hmmm:

 

Check out the headline near the end of the video, "Bachmann wins poll, Pawlenty gets third". LOL.

 

Even if I would not vote for ron Paul I'm still drawn to his campaign as a way to shake things up in the standard douche and turd sandwhich elections.

 

I spoke to a friend who has some knowledge of the media, and he says the editors of any news and opinion media outlet have complete control over content. Now these editors, are very highly paid, like VPs in large corporations.

Many years ago I googled the board of directors of the big five media corporations. (News, Disney, GE, etc). There was some overlap of these boards. (some dudes were sitting across multiple boards). And then I googled a couple of 'em. These same cats were also sitting on boards of Big Pharma, Defense, Big Finance, etc. These guys are part of a good ole boys network which include politicians. If you understand Corporatism, you will understand that these large corporations are effectively protected by gov't by anti-competitive laws in the name of "regulation". These cats like the status quo, and want to keep it.

I'm guessing that these editor types, who are very highly paid, are "useful idiots" - ideologues who believe in Statism, or are part of the good ole boys network, or just know that "something's up" but want to keep their high paying jobs. So they shut up and do what they're told - e.g. "you don't want to discuss Ron Paul because he'll never win". Or, "he's too complicated and the viewers will get bored if they hear about him".

So these editors are possibly how the mass media are very effective at putting out what is pretty much one message. They don't outright lie (lies of comission), they mislead the reader/viewer with "lies of omission". That is, they leave out pieces of information in order to lead the viewer to a different impression or conclusion than otherwise.

Slick.

 

Lets all just write him in.

 

The media is ignoring Ron Paul for the same reason they're ignoring the 1977 hijacking of Malaysia Airlines Flight 653.

Both are old news.

Ron Paul has been unsuccessfully running for president since 1988, when he received 0.47% of the popular vote. (source) His repeated candidacies are newsworthy only in that they are a unique form of protest, and deserve approximately as much coverage as whatever Michael Moore is obsessed about this year.

 

I agree with you until I envision the faces of Bachman, Kerry, Palin, Hussein, Bob Dole...and anyone else who's ever had a theme song.

I'm in Houston right now and I've had a hell of a time finding decent restaurants as usual because most of the reviews talk less about the food in adult terms, and more about "exclusivity". I suppose these are the same people who vote for the theme song rather than the policy.

 

this would be ron paul's theme song:

 

more on media bias:

 

Helps you believe who the true racists are(if you have not yet figured it out)

 

gotta love my Al Sharpton quote in my sig

 

lol

 

Politico story