Letter: Why does the media refuse to cover Ron Paul?


Photo: Jordan Maurice/ Iowa State Daily

Candidate Ron Paul prepares for an inteview during the 2011 Iowa Straw Poll on Aug. 13 at Hilton Coliseum.

Ron Paul’s message is popular. This is undisputable. I was at the Ames Straw Poll on Aug. 13, and I think it’s fair to say he had the most prominent support.

He essentially tied with Michele Bachmann (she won first by less than 1 percent with each receiving a record amounts of votes). More importantly, you can see support for Paul’s message by looking at the comments section of political articles or videos. Look at the results of any online presidential candidate poll. Take note of the fact that active military members have overwhelmingly donated to the Paul campaign compared with any other candidate including Obama.

However, the most obvious news in the Paul community right after the Ames Straw Poll was the blatant lack of just that … news. This should bother everybody, Paul supporter or not, and I’ll try to explain why.

The obvious fair and expected reaction in the days right after the Straw Poll would be that he gets almost as much attention as Bachmann. In 2007 with a much more distant, although unexpected, second place, Mike Huckabee received plenty of media attention.

This has not been the case for Paul. Bachmann was featured in a handful of high-profile TV interviews the day after the Ames Straw Poll. Paul? None.

Early on, some news headlines acknowledged “Bachmann wins, Paul close second” but they became more and more rare as headlines like “Bachmann wins Straw Poll; Perry enters race” and “Michele Bachmann wins Ames Straw Poll, Tim Pawlenty gets third” became the norm.

Some may say I’m “whining” because my chosen candidate missed out on a little bit of media coverage. Well it wasn’t a “little bit.” And I’m here to educate, not whine.

Hopefully, you are as curious as I am as to why Ron Paul has been highly ignored by the media. This was most obvious in a CNN discussion shortly after the Straw Poll, which began with the host saying, “We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race.” Then a Politico guest says that the media avoids Paul because, and this is the key statement, “The media doesn’t believe Ron Paul has a hoot in hell’s chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, winning the Republican nomination or winning the presidency, so we’re going to ignore him.”

Did you catch that? The media ignores Ron Paul because they believe he is unelectable! I think you should feel insulted. You should feel insulted that the mainstream media thinks you cannot think for yourself. That you cannot decide on your own who you believe is the right person to become president. That you will not decide who is electable. They will decide who is electable for you.

This is not an uncommon theme among political analysts, devout Republicans and Democrats, and those who are unfamiliar with what Ron Paul is all about to say that he is “unelectable.”

But where did that notion come from? Do people decide that after watching him speak, really understanding his message or reading one of his books? Or do they get that idea because they “heard” he was “unelectable”?

It should be apparent that this is a big deal. Why shut him out when he’s obviously popular with many people, has a top-notch campaign and can fundraise with the best? What is there to be afraid of? Ron Paul is a steadfast protector of the people, not government or corporate interests. He does not pander and he won’t tell you what you want to hear. Instead, he will tell you what he thinks you need to hear.

Imagine how threatening that may seem to those well-connected bigshots who depend on political games, when someone who refuses to play along is heading toward the White House. Lobbyists avoid his congressional office because they know there’s no point. He’s too principled.

Notice I haven’t even gotten to his issues. The issues are secondary. First and foremost, Ron Paul is not about Republican vs. Democrat or even Republican vs. Republican. It’s about freedom and liberty vs. the status quo. A principled statesman vs. the establishment. The people vs. the government.

Ron Paul has had the same messages since he entered Congress in the ’70s. This election cycle, many discussions have moved toward his unchanging discussions such as the Federal Reserve. Others are pandering. Ron Paul is not.

You owe it to yourself to really find out what Paul supporters find so appealing. Understand why the issues are often secondary to his quality. Be sure to watch some videos. Google Ron Paul.

P.S. As I’m sure many of you know, Jon Stewart did a hilarious piece on the absence of Ron Paul media coverage that is certainly worth checking out.