"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," the 1970 song lyrics and poem penned by Gil Scott-Heron may become another fight song of the Ron Paul campaign. As has been reported by The Huffington Post, Fox News is not allowing Rep. Paul to participate in the January 6th forum here in New Hampshire.
According to Brent Budowsky of the Huffington Post, this is another example of coorporate interest centered MSM (main stream media) controlling the debate, and maybe to the degredation of our democracy:
"First major media fails to give candidates even minimally fair coverage, going b
ack a year.
ack a year. Then major media makes some of the most experienced and qualified candidates virtually beg for a few seconds in the debates.
Now they move to exclude candidates entirely.
Whoever controls the aiwaves controls the ballgame. Though the airwaves are a public trust, they have been abused by those holding the airwaves in trust for the public, violating the most cardinal values of a free press, First Amendment, and truly democratic debate.
Though Paul has raised over $20 million in the last quarter of 2007, and beat Rudy Giuliani in Iowa Thursday and leads Fred Thompson in heavily independent New Hampshire, Giuliani and Thompson have been put in by Fox. Paul is out. Censored?
That $20 million question could be, will Paul run as a third-party candidate? The former Libertarian has an army of revolutionairees on his side, chanting, "Ron Paul REVOLUTION -- give us back our constitution!" in this linked video.
The question is, is or can the MSM be an institutional obstacle to outside the mainsteam two-party candidates. And do you wish you had access to hear more from the likes of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich?
9 comments:
That depends in large part on who is in charge at what MSM provider. MSNBC or Fox News may be more or less inclined to publicize minor candidates than CNN depending on who is running them. That said, the media definitely needs to be more fair in who they cover. The nice thing about the Internet is third parties can get their word out better than years ago, when the only television channels were CBS, NBC, and ABC. I think Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich probably should be represented more equally, but for the record, these two give me the creeps!
By the way, as we have discussed, the last UFO Mr. Kucinich saw was the one he stepped off of!
Ron Paul's voice deserves to be heard. He has a legitimate grass roots organization supporting him and a passionate almost fanatic following. Everywhere you go there are Ron Paul signs. I was just in Florida, and I didn't see any ads for any presidential candidates with the exception of Ron Paul, whose signs were along the roadside and who had a number of supporters carrying signs for him outside the Outback Bowl. He polled well in the Iowa Caucuses and he looks to do just as well or better in the New Hampshire primaries. His radical positions offer something fresh and exciting in the diluted and tepid American political landscape, and they have the power to alter the mainstream of the Republican party even if he does not win the nomination. Students especially seem to be flocking to him as he mentioned in last nights debate. So yes I want to hear more from him. He has a valuable opinion which ought to be heard, and it is a shame that the media is trying to silence him.
Fox News doesn't exactly have the best reputation, nor does the mainstream media, but this kind of thing is kind of extreme, even for the overbearing msm. I agree with what Jeremy said about Ron Paul - his following is quite sizable (I'd see Ron Paul billboards all along the highway when I drove to Dayton over break, for example), and someone with as much popularity as he has certainly should be allowed to participate in such a debate. The msm is the race commentator, but now it seems they've gone the way of NASCAR - purposely tampering with the flow of the event (in this case, the Election) in order to make it more exciting and more attractive to potential viewers. I think that for something as important as a Presidential Election, this type of action by the media is totally irresponsible and ridiculous.
That said, Ron Paul deserves the right to charles his opinions to America just as much as any other candidate.
It's sad enough that third party candidates have hard times getting over all the roadblocks put in place to stop them, but Ron Paul is running for one of the two major parties in this country and he also doesn't deserve to be blocked out. While I don't agree with Ron Paul, he does have the right to be heard and to have people vote for him. I saw the same advertisements as Jeremy when we were in Florida with band and Ron Paul does have a following and they should be able to hear about him, MSM shouldn't be blocking out such popular candidates...or really any candidates for that matter because it isn't their job to make the elections follow a certain pattern, it's their job to say what's going on.
I read somewhere recently that though Ron Paul may not lead in national polls, there are more Internet searches on his name than on any other candidate. I admire Ron Paul for being able to attract so much attention and so many devoted supporters from such a disadvantaged position. Even if he doesn't get equal time on the air, there's plenty of interest in him, and thanks to the Internet, plenty of ways to find out more about him, too.
Ron Paul is a beast which Fox news seems to believe is either to far out there or else that it just doesnt want Paul to be heard. Although Ron Paul is not the greatest candidate for President he is still a major player and has more money then many of the other Republicans combined. He deserves to be heard like everyone else. I mean he beat Rudy in Iowa, has support nation wide and is in the top 5 in New Hampishere currently. I think Fox news does not want any chance of Paul taking a state.
I definitely think that MSM is a hindrance, especially on television. When we watch the debates, most of the attention and the questions are directed to those main candidates. Not only is this unfair, but it also prevents the American people--the people watching these debates/coverage--from understanding the minor candidates. Voters need to hear more from these candidates in order to gain a more holistic view of the candidates (their issues, etc.) and a better idea of who they want to lead the nation.
Troubled past to derail "Ron Paul Revolution?"
Among the racist charges now being reported by the MSM this from the Houston Chronicle:
New Hampshire, with its sizable bloc of independents and the "Live Free or Die" attitude of its citizens, was supposed to be a key turning point for Paul's smaller government, anti-Iraq war message.
Instead, he spent $3.5 million on advertising and finished Tuesday with 8 percent of the vote — a worse showing than his fifth-place Iowa finish of 11 percent five days earlier.
But worse than just blowing millions on a campaign that's not really going anywhere, Paul is setting a troubling example for the hundreds of young supporters making their first foray into presidential politics with his campaign.
On Thursday, Paul was defending himself against the release of past newsletters published under his name in Texas, replete with racist, homophobic and paranoid language, which he has said were written without his approval.
The monthly newsletters date back to the late 1970s. They contain attacks on civil rights leaders, praise for white supremacist David Duke, and more. One 1992 issue noted after the Los Angeles riots of that year that, "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks ... they were paid off and the violence subsided."
Asked on CNN to explain himself, Paul said he was too busy to pay attention to what was being published in the Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report and Ron Paul's Freedom Report. He said they don't reflect his views.
"Libertarians are incapable of being racist," Paul declared.
He accurately claimed that the newsletters were being brought up now "for political reasons." They certainly are — he is a national candidate for president, demanding to be taken seriously. It's reasonable to investigate his past statements and writings.
But Paul, as he has been doing lately, took it a step further, suggesting the newsletters were resurfacing as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to discredit him.
"Maybe this is part of the anti-Ron Paul deal," Paul said from South Carolina on CNN, "and knock down Ron Paul because he's gaining ground with the blacks."
I think that the mainstream media has too much political influence, it is clear that they have picked their ideal front runners (whether or not those choices are in line with the public) and it is complete BS that they would not allow a ligament candidate to participate in a debate. It is pretty commendable that although Ron Paul has been shafted media wise, he has still been able to amass such a following; it would have been interesting to see his success if he were given a fair shot.
Post a Comment