PaulConventionWV
12-22-2011, 12:15 PM
This article examines the types of media biases and how they are used, further expanding on the role of the media in elections.
http://libertysolutions.org/2011/12/22/ron-paul-may-pull-iowa-upset/
It appears that, not only is Ron Paul’s ceiling rising like an elevator, but it is also retractable. In other words, there doesn’t need to be a ceiling. The ceiling used to be the “faithful 10%”, then it was the “faithful 12-15%”. Now, it is just there so you know that it’s there because the media tells you.
While this article is not necessarily meant to defend Ron Paul, it is meant to take a closer look at the goals and purposes of the media. Is the media there to tell the truth? A slippery slope if there ever was one.
Is the media there to read the political shifts and provide them to the public in a meaningful way? No, the responsibility of the mainstream media has always been to report on the facts and let the people decide. While this is often drummed up by certain media corporations, it remains visibly true that this is often not the case. For instance, it is not the job of the media to tell the American public which candidates are “palatable.” This assumes the role of deciding which bloc of voters has the most “mainstream” views. What is mainstream? In this instance, it’s whatever the media decides are the positions of the political leaders in Washington. George Bush’s position used to be a “no nation-building” foreign policy, but that was soon forgotten after 9-11, when Bush promptly changed his idea of foreign policy. Why was the Republican party so inclined to change their views when the Democratic Party was able to hold onto their anti-war positions? If 9-11 was truly a national catastrophe, one would expect it to change the perception of all Americans, regardless of partisanship or how loyal one is to his or her party.
There has been a lot of talk about media bias lately, so I thought I would try to shed some light on the subject by looking at the broader picture of what the role of the media in elections is.
http://libertysolutions.org/2011/12/22/ron-paul-may-pull-iowa-upset/
It appears that, not only is Ron Paul’s ceiling rising like an elevator, but it is also retractable. In other words, there doesn’t need to be a ceiling. The ceiling used to be the “faithful 10%”, then it was the “faithful 12-15%”. Now, it is just there so you know that it’s there because the media tells you.
While this article is not necessarily meant to defend Ron Paul, it is meant to take a closer look at the goals and purposes of the media. Is the media there to tell the truth? A slippery slope if there ever was one.
Is the media there to read the political shifts and provide them to the public in a meaningful way? No, the responsibility of the mainstream media has always been to report on the facts and let the people decide. While this is often drummed up by certain media corporations, it remains visibly true that this is often not the case. For instance, it is not the job of the media to tell the American public which candidates are “palatable.” This assumes the role of deciding which bloc of voters has the most “mainstream” views. What is mainstream? In this instance, it’s whatever the media decides are the positions of the political leaders in Washington. George Bush’s position used to be a “no nation-building” foreign policy, but that was soon forgotten after 9-11, when Bush promptly changed his idea of foreign policy. Why was the Republican party so inclined to change their views when the Democratic Party was able to hold onto their anti-war positions? If 9-11 was truly a national catastrophe, one would expect it to change the perception of all Americans, regardless of partisanship or how loyal one is to his or her party.
There has been a lot of talk about media bias lately, so I thought I would try to shed some light on the subject by looking at the broader picture of what the role of the media in elections is.