PDA

View Full Version : A Tip for Responding to Hit Jobs in the Media




james1844
10-18-2007, 09:01 PM
Hi All,

Here is a lame weekly standard piece trying to deconstruct Paul's military support.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp


Here is my response to it. I think this is a good approach.

------------------------------------------
Michael,

I'm surprised with you. I just read your piece criticizing Ron Paul's support from the military. What I don't get is why you're so critical.

Out of all the republican candidates currently running, Ron Paul has been the staunchest supporter of the rights of journalists such as yourself. Under a constitutionalist Paul presidency your right to write and advocate any position you choose would be explicitly protected under the first amendment.

Under a more security minded candidate like Giuliani your free speech rights would take a back seat to security concerns.

In short its not in your interest to criticize Paul, it baffles me why you're doing so.

Thanks,

James Carl Hendrickson

Taco John
10-18-2007, 09:08 PM
A non-sequitur is how we're supposed to respond?

I would have chosen to go after the fact that he's dismissing the support of veterans. When did veterans stop counting?

BarryDonegan
10-18-2007, 09:16 PM
isn't the weekly standard a Kristol family neocon magazine?

james1844
10-18-2007, 09:18 PM
Taco John,

People are often swayed by arguments that appeal to their own interests. Its fundamentally in the interests of journalists and television media to have a small government (e.g no or weak FCC) and freedom of speech protections. This shields them from harassment by people who don't agree with their views.

Journalists who are critical of Ron Paul must not be aware of his stances on the FCC and the constitution. If they did know that a Paul presidency would guarantee their freedom to report and publish without government interference, they would likely change their views about him. I feel it makes sense to point these out to the media, even those who are critical of him. They're acting against their own interest.

I think this follows very well.

Thanks,

James