Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Gweg

Great article analyzing the extent to which the media goes out of its way to ignore Paul and the reasons why.

2 posts in this topic

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2012/01/the_times_admits_it_deep-sixed.html

Nothing surprising, but an excellent article regardless of how you feel about Ron Paul.

"When it comes to the question of ignoring Paul, the attitude of the Times editors is rooted in the idea that some things are just not discussed in polite society. It's okay for Romney or Santorum to make the assertion that he will expand the military while balancing the budget and without raising taxes. That's false but it doesn't bother the Times.

However when a candidate says we can't afford to be the policeman of the world, that candidate is kept out of the news not because what he's saying is false but because it's true. If that candidate also proposes ending a whole passel of programs deemed untouchable by the Times, well that's all the more reason not to let readers hear about the guy.

But Ron Paul's been the only good story in this race. His views have turned out to be popular within the Republican Party - and getting more popular by the minute.

Those views are not popular with the Times crowd. But we know that from the editorials and the columns. We don't need to read it in the news section as well."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is no surprise. The NYT (pronounced "Nit") has a long history of ignoring contrarian long shots. From their perspective Congressman Paul is a fringe quasi-lunitic who exposes heresy. This will change as he gathers more delegates and presents himself as a credible power at the Convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0