Sunday, February 12, 2012

Fair and Balanced?

I'm not banging the drum for anyone this presidential election.  With one exception, I don't see much difference between them all.  Vote for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Obama - you're voting for someone who's been vetted and approved by the corrupt system that is destroying our economy and wiping out the middle class.

And the media, which is owned by the same multi-national corporations that control the system, wants to be sure you don't pay any attention to that little man, Ron Paul,  who somehow keeps quietly accumulating followers and holding on in the primaries.

Here's today's New York Times Headline:  Romney Edges Past Paul in Maine Caucus .  He "averted embarrassment", says the first line, by beating Ron Paul by 3%.  "Mr. Paul was unbowed, and gave no indication that he would drop out."

I beg your pardon?  It would be embarrassing to lose to Ron Paul? The once- assumed GOP candidate loses to Santorum in three states, then finishes just 3% ahead of Paul in Maine, and the question is whether Paul's ready to say "uncle"?

Dear New York Times - time for a little remedial journalism.  These headlines would have been objective versions of campaign developments.  The copy that followed should have expanded on these themes:

Romney Hangs On to Slim Lead, Paul Is Strong Second in Maine

Maine Rejects Santorum and Gingrich, Pits Romney vs. Paul

As Romney Struggles, Paul Has Strongest Showing Yet

This campaign is a perfect example of what journalism has become.  Dana Bash of CNN infamously said, on camera, that many people are worried, as she is, that Ron Paul won't drop out and will weaken the GOP's chances against President Obama in the general election. Ron Paul's supporters are big into YouTube, so you can see it over and over - and see people's reaction.  The New York Times says a strong second place finish should be persuading Paul to drop out.

News coverage is not impartial and it is not balanced.  It's been a long time since journalists had the goal of finding the truth and reporting it.  Corporate ownership and advertising dollars destroyed journalism and now your only hope of at least seeing behind the lies is Jon Stewart - he's the closest thing to a media watchdog we have.  After noting the media ignored Ron Paul back in August, he was back to note that nothing had changed a month later.

The media laughed at Ross Perot, hoping American would laugh with them.  He scared them to death - he didn't play the game they'd learned to play.  Ron Paul is a similar threat.  Whether you agree or disagree with him, he is stating views that would threaten a solidly entrenched system of corruption.  And the media doesn't want you to notice.

Outsmart them.  Listen, pay attention, notice how they try to influence what you think, and then think for yourself.

1 comment:

Nocomme1 said...

Ron Paul is a devotee if the Austrian school of economics which is considered to be conservative and generally antithetical to most progressives. Most conservatives (including myself) like him on the economy. It's only on foreign policy, where he holds that America was responsible for 9/11 and other such kookery that people start to see him as the crazy old uncle everybody likes but worries about when they're going to have to send him to the home.