PDA

View Full Version : Dear Media




Bloody Holly
01-11-2008, 08:45 PM
Write a Dear Media response in this thread.

Dear Media,

I've noticed that you cannot come up with anything good and factual to run Ron Paul's name to the ground so what do you do? You come up with lies that were already debunked.

You bring up supporters of Ron Paul and divide them up by classifying and pointing out truthers.

This is to get people in the Ron Paul camp to tell truthers to shut up. It works. Oh you're hurting Ron Paul! No, the media wants that. They want less support for Ron Paul. It's the media who is hung up on it. They are trying to get people to stop supporting.

After the truthers leave, they will target the next. Maybe it will be the strippers for Ron Paul.

After the strippers for Ron Paul leave, they will target the atheists.

After atheists leave, they will note geeks for Ron Paul who play World of Warcraft. After the geeks get silenced and leave...

Next comes up they will claim that only young frat boys that smoke pot support Ron Paul.


It will go on and on.

So media, this is an old psychological warfare game. Please come up with something else. It isn't going to work.

On top of that, tell Clear Channel they've ruined radio AND if you are smart, you will know that alot of Ron Paul supporters are upset with Fox. If you are Murdoch's competition, the intelligent thing to do would be to quit smearing Ron Paul and include him on your channel.

Why? Your ratings will go up. I don't want to watch Fox. I will only if Ron Paul is in the debates however with the way they treated him last time, I'm not sure if I will watch Fox ever again.

I will however watch the channel that doesn't smear Ron Paul and outcast him. He has his mind in the right place, his heart and media outside of FOX NEWS, if you want to be apart of the revolution, you are invited.

CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN. Now is your time to shine but I guarantee you, if you keep acting like Fox news, I'm going to stop watching you too!

Bloody Holly
01-11-2008, 08:53 PM
bump. I know some of you are annoyed with the media.

WilliamC
01-11-2008, 09:00 PM
I just wrote an email today after talking to a couple of "conservative" talk radio show hosts that were insulting Ron Paul and lying that he "hates America" and "blames America for terrorism". Any and all feel free to use/modify it as you see fit.



Greetings Andrew,

I very much appreciate your willingness to give people like me with different
views than your own time on your show to express themselves, and realize that
the constraints of time hinder our ability to effectively communicate our
positions.

It is not my intention or desire to "convert" you to Ron Paul, in some ways I
could care less about the man himself; he is not a particularly charismatic
person. But I am concerned that this administration is about to launch another war against another country which has not directly attacked us and which does not pose an imminent threat to our homeland, and that people of influence such as yourself see nothing wrong with a President doing this. If, God forbid, war ever does come, then let it be debated and declared by Congress so that it can be fought with the full support and military might of the USA and won quickly so our soldiers can come home.

You claim to admire Ronald Reagan and often hold him up as an example of what
other Presidents should be like. Have you forgotten the Beirut Lebanon bombings
of our Marine and the French Infantry barracks by Hezbollah terrorists in 1983?
What was Ronald Reagan's response? Did he order the invasion of Lebanon? At
first he wanted to, but soon he decided to withdraw the troops instead. If you
are curious as to why please see his own explanation for this change of policy
here:

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/leb.html

Instead of us occupying their country, today the United States are at peace with
Lebanon.

Have you forgotten the bombing of Muammar Qaddafi's compound in Tripoli after
their airforce harassed our ships in the Mediterranean? What was Ronald Reagan's response? Did he order the invasion of Lybia? No, he ordered a measured response that targeted the leader who was in charge of Lybia. If you are curious as to why please see his own explanation of this policy here:

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/libya.html

Instead of us occupying their country, today Libya has renounced terrorism and
has peaceful relations with the United States.

You claim that Ron Paul is weak on National Defense, weak on terrorism, and that
as President he would make this country less safe from foreign attack. You use
your radio show to promulgate these erroneous statements to thousands of
listeners who will never take time to look at a candidates own words for
themselves. Congressman Paul has written extensively on this topic, far more
than any of the other candidates from either party. Yet you and other
Conservative commentators never reference anything specific that he has written.
Instead you seem to base your opinions solely on his debate performances where
he is trying to explain himself in 1 minute timed responses, often while the
other candidates are laughing at him. Sure, he really needs to have better
soundbites, but the problems our Nation faces can't really be solved in 5
minutes during a television interview. If you honestly want to understand
Congressman Paul's positions please try reading what he has written. A small
sample can be found here:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/...reign%20Policy

You say Congressman Paul is too negative and does not have a positive vision for
America. Again, this completely ignores the voluminous writings that he has done
over the years. Sure, he needs to work on his presentation so that it is more
easily grasped by the average person, and he needs to emphasize the good things that he wants to see happen in our countries future. But how can you claim that his repeated statements calling for more freedom, more individual liberty, and
more prosperity is a bad thing? Again, if you are at all interested in reading
his own writings, and not relying on second hand information from the media,
please see some of it here:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/...%20Sovereignty

I am a very average man, one who has never been much involved in politics aside
from voting. But there are 10's of thousands of individuals like me who have
discovered Ron Paul, a Congressman for over 20 years who has never once violated the oath he swore to preserve and uphold the Constitution. It is not the
personality of Ron Paul that makes ordinary folks like myself motivated to try
and change the direction our Country is headed in. Without his integrity and his
voting record he would be just another politician in DC. It is the realization
that our country and most of it's leaders have strayed far afield from the
guiding principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the
two documents that together make American Government unique among the Nations of the world. Ron Paul doesn't just pay lip service to those documents, he follows them in each and every one of his political decisions. That is why many of his fellow Republicans mock him, because they know they cannot challenge his record. For that reason and only that reason he has my support.

Andrew, I don't know you personally, but I don't ascribe to some conspiracy
theory that everyone in the media is out to get Ron Paul. I do think it is
likely most members of the media just don't care enough to spend an hour reading
what the man has written. Maybe you don't care to either, but if you do I would
really like for you to guide me to some words of his that you think are
dangerous to this country, or which would give you cause to ridicule him as so
many in the media seem to do. And if you aren't willing to do this simple bit of
basic journalistic research, would you at least let your listeners know that
your opinions are based only on your impressions of Ron Paul, and not on any
substantive issues? Are you at least willing to be that fair?


Yours In Liberty,

William C Colley

txgirl
01-11-2008, 09:12 PM
bump

Knut Schreiber
01-11-2008, 09:18 PM
Good work, William. That's how it's done. Reason over insult!

Bloody Holly
01-11-2008, 09:37 PM
I think the real reason why the media keeps bringing up Ronald Reagan is over this:

A Brief History of Media Regulation

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was established through the Communications Act of 1934. The FCC was created as an independent government agency charged with the regulation of interstate and international communications by television, wire, satellite, radio, and cable. The new Commission was in charge of ensuring that the limited broadcast airwaves owned by the public were used to their benefit.

In the 1940s, when larger media companies started to gain immense power, the federal government began a series of regulations to keep the power and influence of the corporations in check. In 1941, the Local Radio Ownership Rule and the National Television Ownership Rules were written into law. The new laws fit in with the anti-monopoly sentiments of the early 1940s, which made it easier for the passage and support of these anti-media monopoly issues . The law stated that any given broadcaster would henceforth be barred from owning television stations that reached over 35% of U.S. homes. In 1946, the Dual Television Network Rule was enacted, which prevented any major network from purchasing another.

In 1949, the Fairness Doctrine was established. The Fairness Doctrine was a major step forward in limiting the power of media corporations' control over communications systems and remains a model relevant in today's marketplace. It established that the media needed to serve the public interest in certain ways. It also emphasized the importance of allowing all points of view to be heard. In the words of the Media Access Project, an organization dedicated to improving media democracy, "for fifty years, the fairness doctrine advanced the public's First Amendment right to receive information on important issues. The fairness doctrine arises from the principle, reaffirmed by Congress and the United States Supreme Court, that broadcasters have special public trustee obligations, which they voluntarily incur in exchange for the exclusive use of scarce public airwaves." The Doctrine sought to ensure that the media served as a vehicle for the public to access to information and to make certain that controversial issues of public importance would be discussed in fair and balanced ways.

The concern for a diverse media ownership continued into the 1960s and 1970s. In 1964, the Local TV Multiple Ownership Rule was written into law. This law prevented owning multiple television stations in any given market, unless there are more than 8 stations within the market. In 1970, the Radio/TV Cross Ownership Rule was founded, which prevented big media from owning a television and radio station in the same market jurisdiction. Similarly, owning both a broadcast television station and a newspaper was barred in 1975.

Then, in the early 1980s, the wave of media regulation stopped. President Ronald Reagan began reversing regulation laws and systematically demolishing media restraints. First, Reagan rescinded the rules that ensured that non-entertainment programming would be broadcast. Reagan then initiated the major overturn of media regulation policy in 1987, when the Bush administration sought to put an end to the Fairness Doctrine. In the court case Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts ruled that the FCC was no longer responsible for regulating the Fairness Doctrine because Congress did not mandate it.



http://www.wifp.org/FCCandMediaDemocracy.html




The odd thing is, Ronald Reagan was not recieved well by the mainstream media. He had to go to the small town medias which helped his campaign.

Now that companies can buy up as much media outlets as they want, people like Ron Paul have a new media and that is the internet. Soon though, these media outlets will start buying out internet sites. It's just beginning.


FCC just approved major media buyouts of newspapers!

Red Dingo
01-11-2008, 10:50 PM
Dear Media,
Rather than write a letter to you, I decided to send you a song I wrote. You will not like it Media - especially at the end when a certain dog-like looking animal .... well I don't want to spoil it for you Media.

It's called Poor Reporting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cACdZw36UnM