Sunday, June 08, 2008

Dan Rather Discovers Chomsky

Just a quick note here. I saw Dan Rather's criticism of the mainstream media just now. Nice to see he figured something out. Too bad he didn't read Noam Chomsky sooner. I read Deterring Democracy more than 10 years ago. Pretty much everything Rather says in his comments could be pulled from that book alone. And Chomsky has said quite a bit more. Not that I agree with him on everything, but he's pretty good on the media.

Labels: , ,

Monday, December 17, 2007

Ron Paul poll numbers up

The mainstream media (MSM) is running out of reasons for ignoring Ron Paul. When he first announced, they just plain ignored him. He was a fringe candidate with no support, no money, no organization, no name recognition, and no success in the polls.

Then he developed a substantial following on the web, and started winning online polls. The MSM dismissed it - Ron Paul's few supporters were cheating. Then he had some success raising money. But it wasn't as much as the anointed candidates, so that didn't do it.

Then Ron Paul started winning straw polls, and he's won many of those. Straw polls used to be considered important measures, but since Ron Paul started doing well in those, the MSM decided they didn't matter any more.

Next the Ron Paul movement started putting real people out in substantial numbers. He has an amazingly large following, and these are motivated and active people. The MSM has simply ignored that. I've yet to see any real coverage showing how substantial the volunteers and Meetups are.

Then came the third quarter fundraising numbers. Ron Paul raised more than John McCain, and didn't spend much of it so he had more money in the bank. That got a little pop in the media, but it only lasted a day or so. The media continues to talk about John McCain as a first-tier candidate even though he's got little money. He can't even manage his own campaign, so how's he going to manage the country?

Next the poll numbers for Ron Paul started going up. Still somewhat low, but they doubled or tripled. The MSM completely ignored that. He was still in single digits, so he can't be going anywhere, right? Of course other single-digit candidates like Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee got more press than Ron Paul despite having less money and comparable poll numbers.

When the November 5th money bomb exploded, the MSM had to talk about him, but it was still only a one-day media event. They quickly went back to the "first-tier" candidates.

Mike Huckabee started rising, and the media vaulted him into the first-tier. Never mind that he still has no money, and his supporters are mainly the evangelicals. Somehow the media finds it easy to dismiss Ron Paul supporters as wacky, but the far-right Christians who don't accept evolution are less wacky.

Yesterday's Tea Party money bomb exploded even bigger than the first, and it got less coverage than the first one. Apparently money bombs are old news. Joe Lieberman endorsing John McCain got more press. Two fossils from the old world of politics are more important than the largest one-day fundraising success in history.

And today I just noticed that Ron Paul actually hit double digits in a significant poll - a CNN poll in South Carolina. Of course the "story" is about Huckabee, but Ron Paul does get mentioned. They can't help but screw him though. They said he got seventh place when he was really sixth. He got 11 percent, and is very close behind McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Thompson, all of whom are between 13 and 17 percent. His poll numbers continue to rise nationwide and in the early states.

Don't tell the MSM that. Only a few days after the CNN poll numbers came out, the New York Times reported: "His candidacy has been widely considered a long shot, and he remains in the single digits in national and state polls." Uh ... his candidacy is no longer in the single digits in at least one state poll, so maybe it's time to drop that.

Keep in mind that polling methods understate the likely Ron Paul vote in at least two key ways. First, the pollsters call people who voted in previous elections. A candidate like Ron Paul brings out people who never voted before. Second, Ron Paul supporters are far more motivated than those who say they support the mainstream candidates. Polling methods can't account for the likely higher turnout.

What will it take for the MSM to take Ron Paul seriously? The answer is clear. When Ron Paul stuns the world with top-three finishes in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, they'll really start talking about what Ron Paul is saying, and why he has tens of thousands of fervent supporters.

I predict he does it. He will be in the top three for all of those primaries, and I'd even bet he'll pull off a second-place in one of them. All this without the free press that has given such a boost to Frudy McHuckNey (short for Fred, Rudy, McCain, Huckabee and Romney).

I still shouldn't get optimistic about the mainstream media. Even if Ron paul does pull off those kinds of numbers, they'll probably just call it a fluke, a one-day story, and stick with their chosen horses. And we'll keep showing them that the internet is rising and the influence of the MSM is falling. Onward and upward!!

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul

I didn't see the whole debate, but I noticed that a lot of the mainstream media picked up on an exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul. You can read a more detailed analysis on Brian Berkey's blog, and in many other places, including YouTube, but I'll give a short synopsis.

Ron Paul spoke against US interventionist foreign policy. The moderator asked him whether 9/11 changed things. Paul then said something obviously true - that US interventionist policies cause others to hate us, and that increases their interest in attacking us (these are my words, not his).

The moderator asked him if he was saying we invited the 9/11 attacks, and he responded by providing a further explanation.

Rudy Giuliani jumps in, attacking Ron Paul and calling for him to withdraw his remark that we had invited the attack. Paul did not withdraw the remark, but then again he did not make that remark.

The mainstream media then decided that Giuliani won the debate by going after Paul on this.

So let me see if I got this right. Ron Paul says something that's obviously true. Giuliani attacks him for saying the truth. And the mainstream media applauds him for attacking the truth.

What a disconnect.

Labels: , , ,