Ron Paul: Total Victory, Yet Censorship Continues
Following last week's Republican Presidential debate in California, I posted results of MSNBC's online polling, which, while not scientific, allowed just one vote per IP address and had thousands of respondents. The polling showed a clear winner of the debate--Texas Libertarian Representiative Ron Paul. I wondered if the media would take notice. Apparently, they haven't.
I was forwarded this piece on the media's lack of coverage of Paul. I am a Democrat, and I'm not going to start going gung-ho for Ron Paul, but the media's lack of coverage of Paul is an affront to our democracy, regardless of whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, or none of the above.
I am not sure why Ron Paul is on the mainstream media's blacklist. As Paul is a Libertarian, I would imagine he has no interest in regulating big media or its corporate sponsors. His breaking of the party mold would seem to be a good story to cover, perhaps worthy of covering even if his post-debate poll numbers didn't justify covering him.
...this is a chicken and egg scenario - if the media routinely ignore so-called marginal candidates then they are never going to attain the exposure of a Giuliani or a Romney, thus the media bias becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Now, The Washington Post has an editorial complaining that candidates such as Ron Paul and Mike Gravel clutter up the debate stage. I can't say that Gravel won a lot of respect in his debate, but I know his ratings were still higher than Chris Dodd. Clearly, the media has a script for how they'd like the races to play out, and the likes of Ron Paul have not been invited to audition.