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!
Also, in what looked like a blatant and overtly hostile, but "fair", question from Tim Russert; Paul was asked if he really wanted to get rid of Social Security, and say that to 3.5 million Florida voters. For the record Dr. Paul has never said that he advocated removing elderly or disabled people from the sysem. He has always said that this would not be done. So I found it to be a little bit disingenuous on Russert's part to ask such a leading question. Incidentally, this was also done in a similar fashion on Fox's Republican debate (you know the one after the one where they banned Ron Paul from participating). He was again put on the spot and asked to distance himself from 9-11 Truthers. I wonder why they did not ask Rudy (whom Dr. Paul has beaten in every engagement) about his relationship with a certain former NY Police Commissioner.
It is one thing to either disagree with or fear a Presidential Candidate's position on the issues of the day, but quite another thing to use the "news" to unfairly and untruthfully characterize his positions, not to mention overtly ignore him in such an unseemly fashion.
A case in point is the recent Nevada Republican Caucus, where Fox News aired reports with graphics showing McCain coming in second, when he did not. There is a video link at the bottom that shows this. I am not particularly concerned with what the mainstream media may object to in Paul's philosophy. What I am against, is their omission and deliberate snubbing of a serious and well financed (without corporate sponsors) contender. It smacks of favoritism, dishonesty, and occasionally character assassination.
Unfortunately this has not just been done by the news organizations that I have referenced, it has been done my most media news outlets. Among them Newsweek, The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle, The LA Times, the Sacramento Bee, and numerous other so-called respectable news outlets. In my opinion they should be ashamed of themselves, to have the audacity do deny the citizens of this country fair and balanced coverage of Presidential Candidates.
Dr. Paul has come in second in two states. Nevada and a recently held Caucus in Louisiana, this fact has hardly been mentioned, and to this day is still for the most part being ignored by the mainstream media. The media know that their reporting or lack thereof, or painting a picture of a candidates positions can and will have an effect on the voter. So in fact, they are doing two things at the same time. One is pretending to present something as news, while at the same time trying to foment opinion away from or towards a particular candidate, although they would never admit it. It is plainly obvious.
What amazes me even more than this unprofessional approach to the news is how many people swallow it, usually without any real outrage. The fact that these Corporations now are the ones to deliver the debates to you in living color with such overt conflicts of interest should bring a chill down the spine of freedom loving Americans. It does not, and that is one of the reasons that I have little hope of this Republic surviving.
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. Those of us that are Americans have been raised for the most part to believe in fair play, particularly when it comes to such things as elections, and counting votes. I do not see this anymore for the most part. No outrage, no protest, an occasional call for instance for paper ballots as opposed to invisible computer ones perhaps.
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.
There is another video on here showing very suspicious behavior regarding New Hampshire's electoral recount process currently underway. You may notice, as did I that one particular public official looks like a deer caught in the headlights!
Enjoy your election, its better than the movies, even if we all know what the ending will be. Stay tuned.
Powered by Sidelines