By Thaddeus S. Kaczor, Jr.
What's worse than the blackout? The type of 'damning with faint praise' type of articles that almost ALWAYS accompanies the meager amount of coverage that Dr. Paul gets. Any positive news is always followed by a qualifier. He has good plans BUT... He has dedicated and avid 'followers' (hate that word) BUT... He won the caucus BUT... In the Chrisitian Science Monitor article linked at the top, Writer Maud Dillingham, after seeing article avfter article deluged with intelligent rebuttals from adamant posters, objectively and soberly looks at the complaints that Ron Paul supporters have about the media.
My take on the media coverage? Excuse me, but since when is having a large grassroots organization; gaining and MAINTAINING popularity WITHOUT the help of (or in spite of) coverage by the media; motivating people to get out on their own (NOT 'bussed in') and actually VOTE for you; having five times as many individual campaign donors as the purported 'front runner'; having more active duty military contributors than all your opponents COMBINED (yet being criticized for 'not supporting the military'!), and finally, actually having a plan that does what all the other candidates PROMISE to do- balance the budget- in one-third the time; proposing to actually CUT the deficit by actually CUTTING spending, and by ONE TRILLION DOLLARS the first year, while the ostensible 'front runner' is proposing to cut about 2% of that, and spreading it out in time (as Buzz Lightyear would say) 'to infinity and beyond!". Ron Paul's record in this race is TEXTBOOK politics on how to build a campaign, stay on message, motivate your base and maintain fundraising- all without compromising your principles.
ANY other candidate does even HALF of what Ron Paul has proposed and accomplished, and the media and the Party Elites would declare the race OVER. Yet the more sense Ron Paul makes, the more solid support (not 'flavor of the week') he gets, the harder the media try to bury him, and the more foolish they look.
One final example. The day after Ron Paul announced the boldest proposal by ANY candidate, promising DEEPER and REAL spending cuts, I did a survey of all the major news outlets on line. Half of the news outlets put the story on their front page, or even in their 'Top News' section, while half of the major news outlets had NO STORY- even if you did a search of their entire website! How can a story be 'Top News' on HALF the major outlets, yet not even rate a MENTION on the other half? The only explanation can be a systematic and deliberate censorship of the news when it pertains to ONE CANDIDATE. It's not paranoia if they really ARE against you!
SO congratulations, CSM! Continue to cover Ron Paul fairly and in an even-handed manner with the other candidates, and you will see your readership rise as people continue to drain away from the outlets that continually and blatantly shoot themselves in the foot with obviously biased and ham-handed coverage (or non-coverage). The American people may be ignorant due to not being presented all the facts, but they are not stupid. And they recognize when they are being lied to. And they don't react to that very well.
No comments:
Post a Comment
ALl Respectful, intelligent comments welcome! A free exchange of ideas is the foundation of a healthy society!