PDA

View Full Version : Do national news stations really think Ron Paul would lead to less business?




harikaried
09-21-2011, 01:06 PM
One could make the argument that if the federal government followed a constitutional role and allows states to handle most everything except defense, the national media would have less to report on.

That means smaller and more local broadcasts would play a more important role at the loss of national media.

But I wonder if the national media really thinks that far ahead and doesn't want to talk about Ron Paul? It's not like Ron Paul can change the world on day one.

But the thing is, there might be more news to cover as each state will be looking to try out different ideas, and viewers from other states would be interested in how those turn out.

Napolitanic Wars
09-21-2011, 01:36 PM
I think this explains things well:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x7o0sNrulg

He says that even though he made tons of money for MSNBC, they told him "We're not outsiders like you, we're insiders," and that people in Washington didn't like what he was saying. Jesse Ventura was getting phone calls from execs about him not supporting the Iraq War before his show was canceled.

The Free Hornet
09-21-2011, 01:46 PM
A Ron Paul victory means

- a huge loss of power brokers
- a crash in the greater-DC area real estate market
- loss of credibility to ALL who labeled him as "unelectable"
- NPR/PBS will have to be 100%-privately funded
- unfettered, free communication as DC loses its tenuous grip on the internet
- less financial control, less emphasis on the financial capital, New York
- overseas correspondents lose their contacts as we pull out
- the elite go insane dealing with Paul's terminator-like focus on the constitution
(they'll have no PR/polling/puppy-dog-eye skills with which to manipulate him)

Microsecessionist
09-21-2011, 02:09 PM
Yes, the FCC (actually its predecessor the FRC) created the MSM (the media as we know it). Taking the FCC away from them will kill their business.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-21-2011, 03:57 PM
One could make the argument that if the federal government followed a constitutional role and allows states to handle most everything except defense, the national media would have less to report on.

That means smaller and more local broadcasts would play a more important role at the loss of national media.

But I wonder if the national media really thinks that far ahead and doesn't want to talk about Ron Paul? It's not like Ron Paul can change the world on day one.

But the thing is, there might be more news to cover as each state will be looking to try out different ideas, and viewers from other states would be interested in how those turn out.

The commercial media are not prime sources of information. If they were, we wouldn't need an intelligence community. As the commercial media were in fact secondary sources of information in the past, they were heavily manipulated by the intelligence community. As the old orthodox commercial media is now being threatened by a new contemporary commercial media of the Internet, they have turned their attention to the Federal government to lobby them for their survival. As a result, the commercial media are now being more influenced by the centralized Washingtonian government than they are by the intelligence community. In other words, the intelligence community has lost a lot of the control that it once had over the commercial media.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-21-2011, 04:11 PM
A Ron Paul victory means

- a huge loss of power brokers
- a crash in the greater-DC area real estate market
- loss of credibility to ALL who labeled him as "unelectable"
- NPR/PBS will have to be 100%-privately funded
- unfettered, free communication as DC loses its tenuous grip on the internet
- less financial control, less emphasis on the financial capital, New York
- overseas correspondents lose their contacts as we pull out
- the elite go insane dealing with Paul's terminator-like focus on the constitution
(they'll have no PR/polling/puppy-dog-eye skills with which to manipulate him)

Focus on the Constitution? Do you mean in regards to the laws of the Constitution being mutually exclusive or inclusive with the natural law in the Declaration of Independence? This seems to be a common claim made in here that somehow the Constitution comes with a set of instructions in how to use it. There are the Publius essays to be sure.

truthspeaker
09-21-2011, 06:08 PM
The media will focus on how many bills RP vetos (Just like they did with George H. W. Bush).

We know he won't sign a bill against the Consitution :D

VETO it Dr. Paul!

Ah, Congress will not be pleased...