PDA

View Full Version : 89 Seconds: by Justin Raimondo




Todd
11-16-2011, 02:16 PM
The media hates Ron Paul for the same reason they hate the idea of losing their monopoly on determining the boundaries of political discourse in this country: because they represent the same arrogance and hubris that motivates their friends in Washington, the empire-builders who thought the “American Century” [.pdf] would last forever – no matter how much we abused and took for granted our vaunted position as a “superpower.





I was really looking forward to the Republican foreign policy debate, eagerly anticipating the clash I expected between Rep. Ron Paul’s anti-interventionist views and the rest of that warmongering crowd – but I didn’t count on the filtering tactics of CBS News. The televised debate went on for an hour, but Ron only got 89 seconds to make the case for peace.

Paul’s supporters have consistently claimed the Texas congressman is being deliberately ignored by the “mainstream” media, and the amount of noise they’ve generated about this has been the subject of more than a few self-justifying media self-analyses, which usually conclude that, no, he’s getting what he deserves. Okay, fine, that’s debatable, although I have my own opinion on the subject: what isn’t debatable, however, is Paul’s rising level of support.

According to a recent Bloomberg poll, among Republican voters in Iowa he’s currently in a four-way dead heat, a single point behind frontrunner and serial sex maniac Herman Cain. Among likely caucus voters who have already chosen a candidate, however, Paul is way out front, at a stunning 35 percent, leading “frontrunner” Mitt Romney by ten points. In financial terms, also, Paul is clearly in the top tier: he’s raised more money in a single hour than Newt Gingrich has managed to spend at Tiffany’s in a year, and spent more in Iowa than any of the others.

The shortchanging of Paul at the debate is inexplicable, in another sense, because giving him his due would have made for some good television. The contrast between Paul’s views and the rest of the pack would have provided more than a few dramatic examples of pandering, demagoguery, and exhibitionist blood lust in response cont (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/15/eighty-nine-seconds/)

Legend1104
11-16-2011, 05:40 PM
What is interesting is that this is an entertainment driven business by nature. It would have been an extreme benefit to the station to play up his differences in order to get more lively debate, but yet they choose to silence him. That means that they are more concerned with supressing our views than getting better ratings (the whole reason they exist). That is scary. Usually the media, even with a biased, will ultimately go for better ratings over agenda, but when they choose agenda over ratings/money then it really says something about their real motives and goals.

moderate libertarian
11-16-2011, 07:54 PM
Excellent commentary by JR. CBS also seems to have a bias against RP due to his Iran/mideast wars stances. This was pretty lowly conduct even for CBS.