I am often amused at how the mainstream media uses overt propaganda under the guise of news in its incessant quest to brainwash the public. What I find even more hilarious is how various political pundits will refer to certain television networks as "liberal". What often comes to my mind is certain references made recently regarding MSNBC as being of a liberal bent. I never thought of General Electric (who owns NBC) as being of that political persuasion at all.
That being said the primary purpose of this article is not only to point out how some of these corporate entities engage in propaganda, but also to show how they will outright lie either by omission or commission to further their agendas, which in my opinion has absolutely nothing to do with news.
I have watched for quite some time how Dr. Paul has been ignored in the press. I do not mean never mentioned, I am more referring to how little they report on him, or if they do at all it is often done disparagingly. Taking the cue from one of these behemoths, the one with the slogan "fair and balanced", I would think that other media outlets would follow suit. I cannot refrain from occasional sarcasm.
What often surprises me is how many times I see people in the public swallow such obvious bias. The most recent that I have seen was last Thursday's Republican Presidential Debate on CNBC. One would think that in a "free and democratic" country with "open and fair" elections that professionals in the 'truth' business would do everything that they can to insure fairness to the process. After all we are electing our next President, and this is arguably the most important political event of these next few years.
So was it an accident, that as usual Ron Paul was called on last with a question in the last debate? He usually is, so I do not think this was an accident. However this was just the beginning of the charade. I suspected, and it was soon confirmed, that Dr. Paul would not be given a fair chance to present his views. The debate lasted 90 some odd minutes, and the total time that Ron Paul received was six and a half minutes. This was less than half of the time of ANY other candidate. Not only that, he was also asked considerably less questions than ANY other candidate. MSNBC decided that they would allow each candidate to ask another a question, conveniently none of the others asked Paul a question. This is how you treat a Candidate? This brings to mind the Fox News debate where Dr. Paul was not allowed to participate at all. What I found even more shocking was that they would not even return his phone calls! If this is not the height of arrogance and hubris I do not know what is. The guy is a presidential contender and can't even get a lousy phone call back!
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - David
"Sometimes I think that people like being lied to, and will continue to like this type of behavior as long as their candidate is represented fairly."
The situation created is that the mainstream media shapes the way we decide how to vote. Voters are making their decisions with a limited set of information on the candidates -- effectively letting the media put the blinders on them for them.
Many people are apathetic and lazy, and do not seek out more information on their own to make informed decisions. These sheeple are the kind of people that they want constrained votes from.
2 - huck
Here's another video on youtube for you.. check out the stats in the USA Today article and how they ignored the one candidate who actually has answers for the upset Republicans who were polled..
The "old media" is getting desperate and sloppy in revealing their bias.
3 - huck
oh.. and check this video out.. the local Florida TV cropped out a HUGE number of Paul supporters in their report. Anti-war Democrats can vote for Paul in Florida btw since FL won't be earning any Democratic delegates for them.
4 - Dave Nalle
Not to burst the bubble of justifiable rage here, but I have to point out that the Media's treatment of other low-polling candidates has been equally shoddy. Kucinich couldn't even get on the stage in the last few debates before he dropped out. And Bill Richardson who was far more mainstream than Paul and getting similar results in polls and primaries got even less media airtime and debate face time than Paul did.
Dave
5 - Pablo
Dave,
This is one of the few times that I wholeheartedly agree with you sir. Since they use polling almost exclusively and incessantly to point out various strengths and weaknesses of candidates, and the fact that the New Hampshire Primary (aside from conspiracy theorists such as myself) election results were so completely wrong, you might think that these media outlets would show a little humility. They quite frankly make me sick.
Occasionally I do watch these networks, frequently what I will do, is when the ads come one, I will take notes on some of the sponsors, and make sure that I do not buy any of their products. It may not be much, but I get satisfaction out of it. :)
6 - Dave Nalle
It's not just the New Hampshire polls that were wrong. The polls in every primary have been way off. The pollsters are doing something very wrong. They're missing some key element or portion of the public they ought to be taking into account. I've never seen results so terrible.
It started with the exit polls which have been so far off for several elections and now it's getting worse and worse.
I actually expected them to miss the enthusiasm for Paul by more than they did, but missing the levels of support for major candidates by 10+ points as they did in South Carolina? That's just incompetent.
Dave
7 - Pablo
Dave,
Well you can call it incompetent, I would call it something else altogether, as you know how fond I am of invisible computer voting machines, and conspiracies.
8 - troll
as I understand it cell phone numbers are only now being incorporated into the sampled population of phone numbers
this should help accuracy
9 - Andrew
You, sir, are exactly right. The major media claim that they treat Dr. Paul the way they do because his poll numbers and primary performance are so poor. Not so. In many cases, he's out-performed Guliani, and, when he was still in, Thompson. Actually, cause and effect are being reversed. Paul is not getting that kind of treatment because his numbers are poor. Paul's numbers are poor because he gets that kind of treatment. The media, in fact, do not like his libertarian leanings. They therefore marginalize him by asking leading questions, no questions at all, or outright ignoring him. Media people know how to effectively brainwash people. You don't come right out and tell people what to believe; you present the story in order to LEAD people to believe what you want. The media have been doing it for years, but until this election cycle, I thought it was just the liberals..............
10 - Clavos
I'd better not get some f--ng pollster calling me on my cell and costing me minutes.
He/she will get an earful, and their bosses will get a very nasty letter.
11 - troll
...not to worry Clavos - use the "no call" list which I believe covers pollsters (if someone knows different please correct me)
your attitude will be factored in as will other problems caused by including cell numbers such as the significant multiple representation of some individuals in the surveyed population
it seems unlikely that many people will give up their cell phones protesting the intrusion or the expense
12 - Clavos
I'm already on the no call list, so that's good to hear, troll.
I gave up my landline (except for the DSL) a couple of years ago; my wife and I each have our cells, with different #s (of course).
The no call list works well; it's great not getting solicitation calls anymore...
13 - Chad_Underdonk
Actually, in their defense I've seen a number of very favorable pieces from the L.A. Times about Dr. Paul. There may have been others which were not so nice that I didn't read, but there have also been many which were not slanderous or disingenuous like have been found from so many other sources.
14 - Les Slater
Pablo,
You make some good observations, but I do not believe you are particularly ‘amused’ by what you find. You seem more surprised, even shocked and certainly frustrated.
What you are beginning to see is a reality. It is not just that recently that this reality has been around. You see it through the eyes of someone who has sympathy for the candidacy of Ron Paul. He certainly is not covered with the seriousness that he deserves.
You conclude with:
“I think that it is time for all of us to admit that we have little to no say in the electoral process as Americans anymore. This election is brought to you, and paid for by huge Corporations who's interests rarely are the same as most voters. Perhaps we should start calling this process and the Corporate Electoral Presidential Race.”
This should be heeded by the supporters of Clinton, Obama, McCain and Romney too. The fact that your candidate is treated with more respect is an indication of the fear that those that control the major media of the potential instability and social crisis that we are facing. They want the blandest, most ‘trustworthy’, no surprise, candidate they can find. This rules out Obama at the top of the ticket. He would raise expectations too much. VP would be just fine.
Les
PS: There is nothing ‘maniacal’ about it. It is just their interests at work.
15 - Brad Smith
It’s been quite a few days now and still no official word on the Louisiana caucus results. There are a few reasons for this and for anyone who still is interested I’ll try and explain why.
The easy part is the provisional ballots. The date to register as a Republican was Nov 29th. but the LOGOP only used a list that included people who had registered as of the 1st. So all the voters who Registered between the 1st and 29th had to cast provisional ballots. It is presumed that most of these were Ron Paul supporters. Furthermore, some of the delegates for Ron Paul were also forced to cast Provisional votes. None of the Provisional votes have been released that I know of. This is one of the official reasons for the delay.
The second reason is a little more complicated. It goes something like this. When you vote in their caucus it is not for your candidate of choice but for a delegate. These delegates then go on to vote for delegates later at the state level. Depending on whether the later primary has a consensus their vote will either determine 20 or 42 delegates who will go to the national convention. Most likely no candidate will get enough votes in the later primary to garner the 51% needed for a consensus. Therefore, the caucus delegates will determine 42 delegates not 20.
Now I’ll back up a little. When you go to the caucus to vote you are voting for a delegate (person). However, you are supposed to know which delegate to vote for because the candidates’ name and picture is on a piece of paper or ticket. This ticket included the names of the candidates delegates and a little info on each candidate. The combination of the candidate and his delegates is called a slate.
In this caucus for the first time and most likely last time delegates where actually allowed to be on more than one slate. This came about with the Ronald and Nancy Reagan slate (their picture was on the ticket) that was titled pro-life pro-familly. The Reagan slate included delegates for Giuliani , Huckabee and McCain. However, most of the people who voted for the delegates on the Reagan slate did not know that the same delegates were also on the slate for Guilioni, Huckabee, and McCain. They thought they were voting for delegates who where uncommitted or basically none of the above.
So this is the situation we have now. The Reagan/uncommitted/none of the above recieved the most votes. However, sense McCain had the same exact delegates (same persons) on two different slates some of these delegates got enough votes to go to the state and cast their vote. But who are they supposed to vote for McCain or Reagan? No one knows. However, because they were on McCain's slate they have unofficially declare McCain the winner because more of his delegates have received enough votes to go on to the state and cast a vote for an actual candidate. But, his delegates aren't really his if more people voted for the Reagan slate than the McCain slate. All delegates are uncommitted and can vote for who they please, but most vote for the candidate that put them on the slate. As I stated earlier this is the first time that Louisiana has allowed delegates to be placed on two different slates. I suspect (and hope) it will be the last considering the confusion.
So, in a nutshell this is where we are. Ron Paul got the most votes that where actually cast for a candidate. Reagan got the most votes cast for a slate. And McCain got the most delegates of any candidate because his delegates received votes from people voting for his and Reagan's slate.
If anyone is interested or is still confused just ask and I'll try and confuse you (I mean clarify) this a little more.
Ron Paul for President 2008!
Peace, Brad Smith (just another devoted Ron Paul Fan)
Ps. The reason the media is not covering this mess is that it would give Ron Paul a bump going into Florida.
16 - Dr Dreadful
I humbly submit that the actual reason the media is not covering this is that it is such a godawful and cack-handed way of going about things that they figure it's best just to let Louisiana sort itself out, wait fot them to announce the final results (in about February 2010 by the sound of things) and then publicize it.
17 - Pablo
For all you freedom lovers out there, the following link will take you to a Bev Harris interview that was recorded today concerning the overt voter fraud occurring right now in New Hampshire. Those of you that are not interested you can go back to sleep again, all is well with the world.
Bev Harris runs blackboxvoting.org and has been working for years to bring fairness and accuracy
to our electoral process.
Bev Harris 1-28 interview
18 - Dave Nalle
Thank you, Brad, for reminding us how unrelentingly retarded the state of Louisiana is.
I was wondering how the hell they ran their ramshackle version of a primary and now that you have explained it I still have no fucking clue how they do it.
I do think it's cool that you can vote for Ronald Reagan even though he's dead. Given the backwards character of their system I'm surprised Napoleon or Andrew Jackson aren't still on the ballot.
Dave
19 - Clavos
"Given the backwards character of their system I'm surprised Napoleon or Andrew Jackson aren't still on the ballot."
Or Jean Laffite...
As to their backwardness, one has only to look at the stark contrast between NOLA's and Louisiana's handling of the effects of Katrina and Florida's response to any hurricane since the 1950s.
20 - Pablo
Dread,
You said:
"I humbly submit that the actual reason the media is not covering this is that it is such a godawful and cack-handed way of going about things that they figure it's best just to let Louisiana sort itself out, wait fot them to announce the final results (in about February 2010 by the sound of things) and then publicize it."
This is taking one instance, that being the Louisiana Caucus, and in my opinion dismissing as either unimportant or irrelevant the numerous references that I made to the MSM distorting, ignoring, and if necessary outright lying to denigrate a candidate that they do not like. That may be fine for a political commentator, but to present it as "news" is nonsense and hypocritical in the extreme.
As far as the Louisiana Caucus is concerned, Dr Paul has made a formal complaint contesting the credentials and selection of delegations, and possible voter fraud. Here is the link to his Press release dated 1/26:
Ron Paul Press Release
21 - Richard Wicks
I'd like to point something out.
Anybody that was vocally opposed to the Iraq war before the Iraq war began, and is against a pre-emtive war with Iran, has been marginalized.
This is Gravel, Kucinich, and Paul.
THIS is the issue. Everybody that's being ALLOWED to run, isn't really for ending the war in Iraq, and is willing to blow up Iran.
That's what the media is promoting.
22 - TK
#11 " January 28, 2008 @ 08:59AM " troll
...not to worry Clavos - use the "no call" list which I believe covers pollsters (if someone knows different please correct me) .
Sorry but our dear politicians excluded themselves from the "No Call" list. Figures!
Ron Paul's treatment including outright censorship or negative comments passing-as-news by the establishment press, was becoming so obvious they had to switch to fully-ignoring him in hopes Joe six pack taxpayer, who is about to be out of a job, and his soon to be draft age sons, will not notice him running at all.
The problem for the establishment is Ron Paul's ideas of returning to constitutional limits and to a sound money policy and his promise to stop the U.S. from invading other countries, for oil or otherwise.
The press, including the talking heads on T.V.,cable, are now in the hands of heads of a few big corporations or rich and powerful owners and they pull the strings. It appears the owners have more than a vested interests in who is in power and exercise their clout when it comes to any real threat like Rep. Ron Paul.
Pass along the word and keep your powder dry.
23 - troll
thanks for the correction re politicians...but does that cover pollsters - ?
24 - Clavos
"Everybody that's being ALLOWED to run, isn't really for ending the war in Iraq, and is willing to blow up Iran."
So GWB is in control of BOTH parties now???
25 - Les Slater
Clavos,
“So GWB is in control of BOTH parties now???”
Bush, like all modern presidents, represents the interests of a small minority, the super wealthy capitalist families. It is they that control both parties and NEED to continue these wars. Whomever becomes the next president will continue the war policy in some form.
Les