Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Should Ron Paul be allowed at Sunday's debate?

There seems to be a debate going on between Fox News and New Hampshire Republicans over precisely who will participate in this weekend's presidential debate.

Rumor has it that online fundraising sensation and Texas congressman Ron Paul and San Diego congressman Duncan Hunter will be excluded because their N.H. poll numbers are not in double digits, although Paul's fourth quarter fundraising numbers were way into double digits, nearing $20 million, according to his website. In the first 240 minutes of the new year, nearly $11,000 more came in.

Over the weekend a Fox News spokeswoman told Top of the Ticket that the New Hampshire Republican Party was making the choice of candidates to participate in the televised GOP presidential debate on Jan. 6 with Chris Wallace moderating. She even provided the chairman's e-mail: fergus@nhgop.org to confirm that. Alas, the chairman never responded to us.

Then, on Monday, that state party chair, Fergus Cullen, issued a statement saying that limiting candidates was not in the party's tradition, suggesting the media should not be in the ....

business of excluding serious candidates and talks were continuing with Fox.

So whose decision is it?

Understandably, neither side apparently wants to incur the online wrath of Paul's passionate parishioners, who scour the Internet around the clock and descend like locusts on any opportunity to praise Paul or right perceived wrongs on any website or blog they can find. If word got out that Fox/News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch's e-mail was rmurdoch@newscorp.com, his mailbox would be full in a flash.

Paul's supporters have set up a special protest website to marshal support, as well as urge his fervent followers as follows:

"We need to send a message to Fox's Rupert Murdoch & his fellow Neocon buddies that he is not Musharraf and the U.S. is not Pakistan, yet!  Fox News cannot just stifle public opinion, debate and impact a primary election by excluding Ron Paul just because they don't like his message of freedom and liberty. Cover them up with e-mails and they will just say it was a mistake or miscommunication.  Be respectful as all of the e-mail addresses below are just employees trying to keep their jobs with the world's largest media monopoly."

The mainstream media -- or msm -- are a particular target of Paul's vociferous followers, an eclectic mix of libertarians and disaffected Republicans, Democrats and, until now, non-voters. Outspoken to say the least, they disregard stories like this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one. They believe that major newspapers and broadcast networks have conspired to pay insufficient attention to Dr. Paul, a 72-year-old ob-gyn and 10-term House member, citing his low numbers in polls, which Paulites believe are self-fulfilling frauds designed to cause voters to invest their votes in more traditional candidates with a seemingly more realistic chance of winning.

Only when these followers, led by a mysterious amateur musician and fundraiser, began making their average $100 campaign donations by the thousands last fall, setting a new one-day online record in excess of $6 million and making Paul the only Republican candidate to increase his donations every quarter in 2007, did the media begin paying attention. But no amount of attention seems sufficient for Paulites, who complain when there is no coverage and then complain again about any coverage they do get. Watch the comments section below.

They gather in chatrooms and more than 1,200 meet-up groups across the country to paint signs, write letters, organize marches and protests, support each other and otherwise promote the Ron Paul Revolution, which they believe will arrive when primary voting starts.

Some 300 young Paul supporters have been in caucus-training camps in Iowa in recent days and are shooting for maybe a stunning third-place there ahead of more famous fellows like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. And they hope to possibly do even better in New Hampshire where the state slogan "Live Free or Die" would seem to lend itself to their cause.

But first fights first. Iowa this Thursday. The Fox forum on Sunday. Then on to New Hampshire and beyond, carrying Dr. Paul's antiabortion, antiwar, strict constitutionalist banner.

--Andrew Malcolm

 
Comments () | Archives (465)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Much respect to you Andrew, you almost sound like your coming over to our side. Who are you voting for???


(I always vote but never talk about it and rarely decide until the end. Too many good stories to tell first and I don't want to be any more biased than any other human in this grand democracy.)

I don't buy into everything Libertarian Ron Paul says but I'd concede that right now he has at least as good a chance at the GOP nomination as the media darling, Hucksterbee! Paul gives it to you straight; while Hucksterbee is trying to run away from his record as AK governor. The most outrageous lie is claiming he's going to be tough on the border when for a decade he rolled out the Red Carpet for Tyson's black-market cheap labor that was jumping the US/Mexican border. Yet Hucksterbee's in, and Paul's out. Go figure.

Fox News has made another huge blunder in snubbing Dr. Paul. The Revolution has called for a massive dumping of Fauz News stock (already having an effect), massive e-mails to advertisers on Fox warning of a boycott and NOW Murdoch will be reading hate mail until the actual election!

YOUR FREEDOM IS A SHAM! Do you think we still live in a free country? This country has become a corporatist conglomerate that makes every effort to control every little thing the public sees and hears. There is no more free choice. There are no more free elections. Fox, ABC and others (all corporately owned, all financed by big corporate advertising) are telling you and showing you what they want you to hear and see! FAIR and BALANCED? Don't make me laugh! Not a single ballot has yet been cast, but Fox and ABC are going to control what they show you in order to steer you to a candidate of THEIR choice. Which candidate is that? Take your pick! They're all cut from the same cloth. Hillary, Rudy, Barack, Mitt, Edwards, McCain and the rest... The differences between them don't amount to a hill of beans. It's time to shut off your TV and radio news! Inform yourself! This may be our last, great chance to turn things around. Ron Paul endorses our Founding Fathers! We need to endorse Ron Paul. He's a simple man with a powerful message! We've moved away from the COMSTITUTIONAL republic we were formed to be! It's time to get back to our roots. We need a revolution today! TODAY! Tomorrow may be too late!

The fact is the main stream media has become a pathetic joke, and they know we know that, so they are trying to resist us in some cases, instead of joining on. Not only do we have propaganda machines like Fox News, wielding dummy power for corporate big brother, but we also have a caving in by other news outlets like the major networks, CNN and even the New York Times, which I don't read anymore since it has chosen to act as Bush's little helper in more then one instance. Not only that. you simply cant get people to raise the issues they should be anymore. Only brainwashed journalists hold their jobs these days. What happened to the BBC? Dan Rather? Anyone who opposes the Bushies and the Neo Con establishment?

Andrer Malcolm states "They believe that major newspapers and broadcast networks have conspired to pay insufficient attention to Dr. Paul..." I would have to alert Mr. Malcolm that this is no more a belief than a fact. Hilaire Belloc wrote a short book titled, The Free Press, on this very subject and how the news media actually goes further to manipulate opinion. The mainstream media is a powerful machine that can essentially make and break politicians; though, they have discovered with Ron Paul that not all people still listen to them and have taken to the Internet of which thrives a "Free Press" for a real balanced and fair news source. I know there have also been polls on media trust and while I cannot comment on the numbers, one would have to investigate the source and polling details because such end results are only as accurate to the degree of who and what's questioned. That is to say, if you want a specific answer, create the right equation to get it. The polls and media are quite good at deriving this information.

"If there is one power in modern soceity which is justly called all-pervavsive, it is the Media. It is not a power that equals that of Church or State, but one that increasingly towers above them. It warps and depletes public information. It prevents the just criticism of public servants. Above all, it gives immense and irresponsible power to a handful of wealthy men -- and especiall to the one most wealthy and unscrupulous among them (Hilaire Belloc)."

While it's not too hard to see that Fox News is biased, and not much harder to make a case that it is corrupt and evil, I have never known it to be so stupid. By excluding Ron Paul, knowing that his supporters are vocal and full of resentment for FN and big media in general, it will give him much more visibility and credibility than he would have gotten if Fox had just included him in the roundtable and turned his microphone off for most of the time.

Ron Paul the Person is much less inspiring than Ron Paul the Message and Ron Paul the Voting Record, as evidenced by his many public-appearance missteps. This is not meant as a slight to him-- in fact it's pretty refreshing. He's so unpolished that the only explanation for his popular support is that people like the way he participates in government and makes policy. I think he even said something like "It's not about me; I'm an imperfect person. But the message has no flaws".

So Fox could just have added him to the guestlist and let him say some more silly or easily-misinterpreted things (Huckabee and fascism, etc). It would probably not have done a whole lot for his popularity. Instead Fox has put martyrdom on his batting tee and you can bet his campaign is going to take a swing at it.

If I ran Paul's campaign, I would get Jack Cafferty to moderate and enlist two or three of the smartest, most articulate Republicans I could find who disagree with RP's platform and hold my own debate at the same time. Hell, do it right outside the Fox debate venue and watch more people show up and stand in the cold to watch my debate than are inside for the "real" discussion. That's just me, or a version of me that has $20M to spend and wants badly to win something.

If Paul, his campaign, and his supporters get it right, the "viable candidates" are going to know what it's like to go hunting with Dick Cheney after this Fox News Misfire.

In an interesting development, word is spreading about Ron Paul supporters dumping their shares of NewsCorp. Looking at today's NewsCorp. stock, the value seems to be dropping rather dramatically.
http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NWS

Since I own no shares, I will instead boycott the Fox Network and the advertisers for KTLA, the local Fox affiliate.

The bankers and their media cohorts , your owners, are very much afraid of losing their Ponzi racket. Ron Paul is exposing the Federal Reserve for what it is: a privately owned secret banking cartel that seizes our wages in order to grind out more fake dollars. Of course he should be included if you intent to have an honest discussion of different issues. or will it be "You contort, we abide"?

This has to be record for responses, correct? Another anecdote that could go into a "there's something happening here" file.

Do Hillary posts/stories or Huckabee pieces create this much interest?

At least you've picked up on fact that a grassroots, spontaneous campaign, flying largely below MSR, is out there perculating.

You need to stay on this beat. Might be a book in it for you one day.

Bill in Montgomery.

Rupert Murdoch is not an American. He's an Australian that bought a passport. And he wants to buy the Presidency, too.

Better hurry and dump that Newscorp stock while it's still worth something.

God help America - and the rest of the world, if insufficient voters don't wake up in time to avert the otherwise inevitable plunge into naked, and this time GLOBAL, Fascism.

You are teetering right on the brink - the rest of us wake up every morning relieved that one of your Blackwater goons or CIA Gestapo haven't ditched habeas corpus right in our bedrooms overnight.

I am gratified to see at least some enlightened posters here - the main article was not so hot. In time of revolution or bust, there is no place for bystanders.

Good luck, Ron Paul. Good luck America.

The world awaits your re-awakening from nearly 100 years of fiscally-driven nightmare.


Wow what scumbags FOX are... I was told by the NH GOP Chair that it's THEIR fault not our GOP, who has always treated RP and his supporters just fine.

The simple fact that you label people who support Ron Paul 'Paulites' and not voters or supporters, invokes the image of a group of people who are, for lack of a better term, a cult. Why hasn't there been a label given to supporters of Clinton or Obama or any of the other candidates. I don't know if this was your intention but this is and has been a trend of the MSM in order to make the candidate and the people who support that candidate into something other than voters. That is, to remove them from the 'normal' population and classify them as freaks of some abnormality.


(Well, there have been labels put on followers of other candidates. Clintonites. How about Fredheads? But at the suggestion of one, we've adopted Paulunteers here.)

Ron Paul is getting a huge favor by not being included on these debates. Coverage- as the stink rises RP gets free publicity. Curiosity will lead to people wanting to find out why fox will not let him speak. This will only help him as his message gets sabotaged in the debate. Every mainstream outlet is out to paint Paul and supporters as kooks who want to roll back the clock to the 18th century.

Thanks The TRUTH and DR. NO Ron Paul Will win in end Evil fails Faux is done GO RON GO

You're right, we are like locust. Remember that enemies of liberty.

Here's a challenge to all the alphabet news media outlets to redeem their biased media coverage. Let's ask each and every one of them to attend and broadcast from inside the next Bilderberg meeting in 2008 and give an unbiased and uncensored documentary covering the complete list of participants and guests, as well as the agenda. Shouldn't be a problem, right? Hey, can't be too much different to documenting a G8 summit, can it? (I won't hold my breath).

Dr. Paul is an anomaly to most other "candidates". I pray his candidacy leads him to the White House.

I have to agree, adding a label to the supporters of Dr. Paul is stupid. I support a candidate and I believe in his views and ideas. How long has it been since we had a government that looked at the constitution and asked should we do this. I am tired of picking the lessor of two evils every single presidential election. That is why I am voting for change. I challenge voters to not look to the media to do their research and go out and learn about a candidate and participate in the election process. Sitting at home and letting any group feed you information is so 1990s. If you are 18, you have the tools to go out and research a candiditate, look at their views, go to meet-up groups, make a decision on your own. Difficult as it may be.

I also feel bad for Fox News. Their stock takes a hit from trying to control the presidential election by censoring a candidate. If you want more information, please by all means research it yourself. Welcome to the new campaign! Welcome to the ReLOVEution. It will be televised!

Media bias occurs when CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc. show photos and events of McCain, Hillary, et al, and fail to show Congressman Paul's signs, photos or events. When candidates are mentioned you see the "top tier" candidates that they pick, or want the public to pick -- and fail to show Congressman Ron Paul.

If they showed Dr. Ron Paul as much as they show Huckabee Dr. Paul would be in FIRST PLACE.

Be advised: Huckabee wrote an article in Jan./Feb. 2008 issue of Council of Foreign Relations' magazine and talks of choosing President of CFR Richard Haas as foreign policy advisor. Huckabee is a New World Order Puppet!

Save our Constitution . . . VOTE RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008.

Go figure, Big Boy o'Reilly doesn't like Southernors. He spent the better part of his life teaching lies about how great lincoln was and how bad the Confederate States of America was. On the show, He speaks over anyone who defends States Rights and the South's 2nd War of Independence.

Don't watch FOX - we made em we can break em.

Feedback@foxnews.com
yourcomments@foxnews.com

Mr. Murdoch,

Please reconsider your decision to exclude Presidential candidate Ron Paul from the New Hampshire debate on January 6th hosted by Fox News and the Republican Party of New Hampshire.

I remember when Fox News was litigating with Time Warner to gain access to the New York City market. It wasn't fair when Ted Turner and Time Warner prevented Fox News from competing with Turner's CNN.

You prevailed in this battle to gain access to the New York City market via Time Warner and if allowed to be heard Dr. Paul's message of Freedom will also prevail.

Please reverse this decision in keeping with Fox News's on mission statement of being the "Fair and Balanced News Network"


Respectfully,


Robert Sharpe
Houston, TX

1996-2000 Harris County Republican Party Precinct Chairman Precinct 490
1996 Republican National Delegate Congressional District 25
1998 Texas State Platform Committeeman Senate District 13

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering, (1893-1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich. [Göring]
Date: April 18, 1946

One of the reasons Ron Paul is fought by the mainstream media is the because of the profits such companies like GE/NBC (who donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign) or Microsoft, (donated 2.4 million to get GW bush elected.) In the war.

OR WESTINGHOUSE / CBS INC, whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group) former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence1978–1981, who had served as Caspar Weinberger's deputy secretary between 1981 and 1983, succeeded him as secretary of defense, United States National Security Advisor 1986–1987 etc

Or DISNEY / ABC / CAP (donated 640 thousand to GW's 2000 campaign) or TIME-WARNER TBS - AOL (donated 1.6 million to GW's 2000 campaign) or NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch: Board of Directors, Philip Morris (USA) donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000)*

His citing of BLOWBACK in the first republican debate is spot on while candidates like Guiliani have no historical understanding of Operation Ajax planted the seeds of Iranian & Islamic hatred of things American. The USA government has been for the past 50 years supporting suppressive regimes around the world as long as they helped along our economic interests. To the world knows the as far as democracy is concerned we are complete hypocrites. We look the other way while Saudi Arabia has one of the most oppresives governments in the world but we dont care as long as the oil keeps flowing.

Ron Paul is willing to call a spade a spade & let Americans know what is really happening inside the beltway. He has cited that the IRS & the FED must go & has given complete & logical as well as consititutional resons for doing so. So Andrew your "journalism" lacks any real sense of reporting & instead uses innuendo, (a LA Times staple) as a way to infer that Ron Paul supporters are not "normal" & invite the scorn of the "rest of us". Maybe some of my fellow RP supporters "appreciate" your effort but I can see it for what it is.

You want to write a journalistic piece? Then look at what really matters and what the real story is. Americans are waking up to the bool$hit that they are being spoon-fed & some of us are choosing RP because he is finally saying what we have known all along.

Andrew,

It looks as if you have toned down your rhetoric of Dr. Paul as of late. Good for you. I am sure that you get amused by putting some adversarial remarks about the good RP just to get a rise out of us "Paulites". Well, I like your change in tone. Now how about some good coverage for the good Dr. Paul.

GO RON PAUL!!!!


(Or maybe it's YOU who has mellowed? :) )

Oh, and a vote would be nice too.

Though polls don't mean a lot, Dr. Paul did win most of the straw polls. He has raised quite a bit of money without the help of CFR members or lobbyists. Dr. Paul is not a "celebrity candidate". His message is clear and powerfull. The MSM has a lot of pull when it comes to political views and I personally believe that they have too much power. The media should report news and let the people of the world decide what best suits them. Dr. Ron Paul does have a lot of support from U.S military and civilians as well as support from other countries. Fox News Entertainment Group should allow Dr. Ron Paul express his ideas and core values to the American people. This way the news will be "fair and balanced". Let us decide. Thank you.

Where I hope some of the statements you made were cynical (and I'm moderately sure they were) in this age of news commentary, that is much more commentary than news, I can't be 100%.
(Isn't that a sad commentary in and of itself?)
I do thank you for providing the links for Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Fergus. And if you were being cynical, I thank you for the entire article.


(You're welcome. Thanks for reading and leaving the comment. Hope to see you back again, Josh, even for non-R.P. items. :) )

Mr. Malcolm: Splendid article. Also, I went back and read 8-10 of your prior missives on this issue/subject. Thank you for your fascinating perspectives. Keep up the good work. -The Garret


(Thanks for your kind words--and more importantly for reading and taking the time to comment. Hope you'll return often.)

Dear Andrew: Thanks for the article about Ron Paul. I am supporter of Ron Paul in rural Iowa, and I will caucus for him tonight. Many of us support Ron Paul because of his ideas - this is an ideological campaign, essentially. It is not based on his personality, his family, his star-power, or his probability of winning.
Limited government, constitutional government, ending the war, respect for new life, control of our monetary system, balanced budgets, reduced subsidies, fair trade practices, personal privacy, individual liberty. These are not "crazy" or "rabid" positions. These are authentically and quintesssentially the American values. I am sorry that the MSM continues to think that we are somehow odd or loony. Thanks for not calling me "crazy". Time to do chores now.

My email to Mr. Murdoch bounced. That's really disappointing. I would expect at least an auto-responder. As far as customers emailing Rupert Murdoch, aren't these just customers asking a provider for what they want? How is that spam? It seems to me the customers are saying "we want to watch your commercials, but we want to watch our candidate first". I just don't see anything wrong with that. All the support for Paul just seems like democracy in action; the thing everyone seems to agree we need. I don't think that makes Paul supporters bad people.


(Try e-mailing: feedback@foxnews.com )

I was a Fred Thompson supporter right up to the point when I learned of Dr. Paul's views on limited consitutional government. You know, the kind of views conservative Republicans used to espouse.

I find the MSM constant attempts to marginalize him troubling but typical. They never fail to state he is a libertarian despite his Republican affiliation of many years.

The fact is that the modern Republican party is left of center on too many issues and just because the Democrats are left of extreme left doesn't make them a good choice. The Republican Party needs to re-learn what a real conservative viewpoint is and Dr. Paul seems to be the best candidate to pull everyone - including the Democrats - back to center.

May the best man win!

Ron Paul is an orthodox American. I am in the process of publishing a book about the beliefs of the founding fathers and Ron Paul's positions are dead smack in the middle fo where the founders were. Someone mentioned that Ron Paul supporters were a cult. If that is true, the our nation was founded by cultists who believed that were are the United STATES of America, not the United STATE of America.

The federal government has no constitutional authorty for about 75% of the things its does, yet the drum beat goes on for more Washington centralized power with each election. It is time to put the Federal government back in its place according to the preamble of the Constitution. Its master is the people, not the people's master. It is a coordinator of the power executed by the people and has no authority over the people.

I recently discovered this blog and have enjoyed reading the comments about the campaigns but am amazed (hmmm... I seem to be amazed quite a lot lately *grin*) that most articles have comments in the single digits, a few get to double digits, but only one recent article has achieved triple digits.. this one.

There are 430 comments in this article as I write. I just wonder if maybe the polls could possibly be wrong.

Watrfrnt


(If comments here were votes, you'd surely be right. RP supporters are very committed and vocal and we appreciate the dialogue ongoing here. Thanks for reading. Hope you and all the other newcomers return often. We try to be unpredictable so you never know what you'll find. See this morning's Iowans are cheap item.)

Who the hell is Ron Paul. Never heard of him before the presidential race started.

Ron Paul has no support?!?!? There is already hundreds of messages supporting him, BTW this video is awesome showing the BIAS (written in Bold, capitals) of Fox news fraud news: http://youtube.com/watch?v=J8oO_OD3PtI Do yourself a favor and spend 7 minutes of your time watching this . . .

for the newest numbers of the Iowa GOP caucus goto: http://www.iowagop.net/

I was going to vote Democrat because I thought no republican Had a chance. Then I saw a C-Span show about Huckabee and decided to pick him as a good pick.. heard a bit about Ron Paul. It was very hard 2 find anyone talking about him on television. which made me want 2 find out more. it short of felt like some body did not want me 2 know about him.. which made me want 2 know about him even more. which finally motivated me to go 2 my sisters house 2 use their internet and find out more. once I learned about him.. I decided to try 2 pick him as a good change. I think I would vote for RON PAUL 4 president and maybe Huckabee as vice president. this would be a good match.. I watched Hillary talk, but it seemed like when her husband was in office.. she was the real one pulling the strings. maybe this is why she did not leave him when he was with the intern. If she left who would run the country?? Watching Obama.. I keep thinking of a
Muslim sleeper agent. don't know why.. it could be because of his name, not because of his skin color. if collin powell ran for the job with his history as a military leader and because of his race. I would definitely vote for him. I watched a t.v. segment with him on C-span on iowa caucases day. it seemed like he was making things up as he went along. he answered a question about special education. he verbally attacked Paul Simone, saying it was his fault. if he represents change. why has he not changed these laws since he has been elected? I live in Illinois. I am mad about this. He says he used to have to shop at Target and he still does with his wife. he says he used to live in a small condo.. my Aunt lives in a small condo that costs $400,000. this Guy really sounds like a Republican to me.. I live in an apartment and I have to shop at Walmart. Not because I want 2. But because it is the only way I can support my wife who can not find a job, because there r no jobs because he has not changed things. 4 her 2 get a job, we would need a 2nd car, more insurance, more $3.00 a gallon gas, more bills.. just 2 pay the ones we have and try 2 eat.. if he can not fix our state. how can he fix our country??

who should I vote 4? who will really help me out?

Usually the 2-party system gets together to stomp a 3rd party candidate (independent, Libertarian, etc.) In this case, Ron Paul is having success using the 2-party system to promote the message of liberty and freedom.

The GOP is uneasy, and could benefit from Ron Paul. The GOP isn't going to take the White House with any of their other candidates.

The big loser here is federal government. Voters are wondering why it is so big, why we have so many bases overseas, why we have so many taxes, and this can lead to smaller federal government. Maybe with the help of Ron Paul and others, we will move toward a republic of states instead of one big state called the federal government.

This is very bad form.

Despite a 75% strong showing nationwide in the straw polls, both Fox News and, possibly, ABC, have chosen to exclude GOP candidate Ron Paul from the debates. If the Henhouse News Network drops Ron Paul from the debates, does that make Ron Paul the new Fox?

Groucho Marx was right: "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and then applying the wrong remedies". We can now expand Groucho's elucidation on this subject matter to include America's biased and abusive, corporate, so-called "news" media, as well.

Bill G. in Prescott, AZ

I've posted here before, and I've been following this column fairly closely. I don't really have any bones to pick with the writer, Mr. Malcolm, or others who write on Paul for the LA Times. I don't completely agree with their perspectives, but that's Okay. I am simply grateful for the ability to post.

While I know there has been a rampant controversy regarding "on-line" support versus "vote-lever" support, some of us Americans (Paul supporters and others) have to realize that there is a much bigger fight going on than Ron Paul. I am saddened and angry at some elements of the mainstream media (particularly TV media) which turn this election into a battle royale between "favored" and pre-selected candidates. Some Americans are waking up to this fraud--and it is a big fraud that has been ongoing for years. Many writers and newspapers are completely justified to post their viewpoints on the candidates, or their positions; in the "old days," the reader knew the viewpoint/perspective from the onset. It may have been the "big business" or "big labor" viewpoint, but at least the reader knew what he/she wanted.

Now, with mergers and consolidations and takeovers, the "big media" (for example, FOX, CNN, etc.) have attempted to cater to, and control, a
"common voice" in the American electorate. They have become what the economist Galbraith referred to as a "technocracy." And they have become too powerful, and too controlling, for the public good. The Internet(s) have siphoned off much of their power, but because the U.S. citizenry have been rattled by years of corporate control, misinformation, disinformation, and the heavy burdens of trying to support the multinational-corporate schemes, including big banking, there is a lag time between realizing the truth and acting on it.

And that very problem of "reacting" is reflected in the voting lever. A great many people are still glued to the TV tube, sucking up the disinformation and garbage, while trying to juggle jobs and family. The message of contrarian candidates (such as that of Dr. Paul) is hard to digest for the layman who is struggling to make ends meet. All the while, the "political brokers" in this Republic are moving events around us, while we struggle to catch up and make a choice about our future.

If the LA Times and other "established media" do not offer a voice for the Americans who are dissatisfied with the "decisions" of the political brokers, then the result is frustration and anger at the political system. Thankfully, the LA Times and some other media establishments still offer this opportunity. However, anger is flowing from a certain core of people who want change, while many others are simply riding the tide of messaging that comes from the TV box.

Sadly, the newspapers are struggling because of the likes of Murdoch. This kind of monastic control of information--an attempted monopoly over the media--is a rotten blight on America. Some Americans realize this; others are still learning. But we have to realize that the big fight is not over individual views of reporters and writers, but over the ability of corporate titans to take away the public voice. We have been seeing the effects of big corporate media for some years--to minimize the public voice, to promote their singular viewpoints about the war in Iraq, globalization, and the war on everything that does not comport with their vision. This kind of corporatization is throwing the good ole USA into a tailspin.

As the change agents sort through this mess, and try to destabliize the rotten media empire that has grown over this country like a plague, I ask for two considerations: 1) understand that change of the status quo is absolutely necessary for American freedom to persist; and 2) consider the message of Ron Paul--even if you don't agree with it or support it. At the very least, we should be patient with others' viewpoints, and hopefully understand that there is no one right answer to the nation's problems.

All of us should awaken and ask the candidates about their commitment on various issues, and we should not let up. If we are lazy in our questioning, then we will get tiresome, meaningless answers.

Once again, I thank the LA Times for offering the opportunity to voice an opinion.


(And thank you, Scott, for reading and sharing your thoughtful opinions. That's what this place is for.)

FOX NEW's motto, "We Report. You Decide" is laughable if they censor Dr. Paul and Duncan Hunter from the upcoming debate.

nice article

WE the PEOPLE own the airwaves, not Mr. Murdoch. He and the others in the MSM need to remember that. If Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter are not included in the FOX News N.H. debate then there really won't have been a debate.

My thanks to the LA Times for being open to the unconventional and writing an objective piece covering the issue of non-interference in the political process.

Throughout American history dating back to Colonial times newspapers and other media outlets have taken political positions and editorialized strongly on behalf of candidates that their editorial boards or ownership support. This is part of the American Way. Over the past century the preferences of the editors increasingly have seeped from editorials and signed advocacy pieces into actual reportage. This is regrettable but is an unavoidable consequence of the editorial process and a privately owned press. People (and editors) are more inclined to follow topics of interest to them than they are closely to follow news and issues that have no particular significance to them. If I am allergic to strawberries, I'm less inclined to cover the strawberry competition at the state fair than if I regard strawberries as the ultimate of fruit.

That said, when a media organization asserts objectivity and fairness, the ideal once taught in journalism schools, as its very reason for being, then overt bias on the part of that organization undermines its premise and credibility. When an organization of this type sponsors a public debate forum assertedly to foster public knowledge of legitimate well-established candidates in advance of political selection processes, it is doubly incumbent upon that organization not only to provide a level playing field for everyone in that category, but to avoid even giving the appearance of unevenness in the conduct of the forum. The hallmark of journalistic integrity in that process is to ensure there is no thumb on the scale and that the editorial preferences of the debate sponsor are scrupulously kept out of it.

It is ironic that Fox whose news coverage was established in reaction against perceived media bias should actively engage in bias so blatant that it effectively parodies that of the alternate media outlets. Fox's efforts to squelch a viewpoint embraced by ten percent or more of the voters in the immediately preceding election venue, while including viewpoints embraced by far smaller percentages, certainly gives lie to the notion that media bias does not exist. The pot calls the kettle black.

In reading this over before posting it, I have to laugh that somehow no particular candidates or political viewpoints are explicity named. But then the issue is not one of particular candidates or viewpoints. It is one of principle and integrity.

Clara Peller's famous Wendy's hamburger commercial in a past campaign invoked the tag line, "Where's the beef?" This time around the slogan seems to be slightly different: "Why hide the beef?"

By taking its position in this blog, the LA Times has acknowledged the principle of fairness while reserving its right to have preferences. Sadly Fox has failed to live up to its mission statement, its motto or its vaunted commitment to objectivity. And sadly, actions have consequences for good or for ill. Thumbs up for the LA Times. Thumb down on the scale, for Fox.

01-05-2008
Dr, Ron Paul WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO WIN!!
He is changing the plans for the NWO, World Bank, NAU, NAFTA, EU, etc.
When will the Sheeple in this nation of MORONS finally awaken to the FACT that OUR ONCE Great Nation is being invaded, and overthrown by 20 to 30 million illegal INVADERS, alligned with the two major parties that are destroying OUR wonderful country??? In other words, TREASON!!!!!
The USA has NO INDUSTRY any longer! It has allowed the educational system, health care, etc., to be overwhealmed by INVADERS from the south! The World Bank has sent its $$ to China!
The $$$ that Dr. Paul has raised will not make any changes in the facts made above!
The national media is controlled by that same disease it's like a cancer. It eats away the good and kills everything else. GREED, is GOD in the USA! The World Bank is GREED!!
ONLY a national REVOLUTION by those SHEEP will have a chance to
bring sanity back to the PEOPLE and a new government formed with none of those presently serving involved. ONLY, Dr, Ron Paul!!
Ask yourself, WHY is there a movement to disarm veterans in the USA? To stop a REVOLUTION!!
REVOLUTION NOW! OR GODD BYE, USA!

Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet, KSC, Florida
(Born about 8 days after Dr, Ron Paul in Pittsburgh, PA)

Shawn Hannity reminds me of a
Lost Duck in a West Texas Hail Storm since his ol' pal Rudy G. has taken a dive in the polls. I am sick and tired of Hannity and the rest of the so-called "Great Americans" picking and choosing who they consider to be viable candidates in the race for President. In my humble opinion, FOX news owes Ron Paul an apology and an invitation to the N.H. debate. Anything less...would be "RIDICULOUS".

Everybody bring a bullhorn to the FOX debate and chant, in unison:

FASCIST
ORWELLIAN
XENOPHOBES

It will drown out the debates themselves.

And what's not fascist about this move of theirs? It's exemplifies the definition of fascism to a T.

ABC will give Ron Paul air time,Fox will not .Does that surprise you? Just about everyone knows what Fox news is all about with Hannity,O'Reilly and the rest of the spin commentators.Anyone who believes these guys would not believe in Ron Paul's message anyway.

Andrew,

Thanks for providing Rupert Murdoch's e-mail address. That certainly was helpful!

Now to consider why "Paulites" are supporting Ron Paul, and the Ron Paul Revolution... He has given us hope for the future, that we might have a president with integrity, and the strength to create much needed change, that we might be able to regain some of the greatness of what America has always stood for, but has been destroyed, especially by the present administration. Ron Paul represents a chance to Take America Back from the corruption and greed (Bush and Cheney) that has taken it by storm, while Americans were sleeping, and Congress was apparently NOT doing it job, with the exception of Ron Paul, who has always been there in support the U.S. constitution, and the civil liberties of the American people. He represents our last chance of Liberty, Freedom, Justice and True Democracy.

What I find amazing is that the other candidates would tolerate Ron Paul being left out. It seems to me that Ron Paul has more to gain from the publicity of being left out and the other candidates have a lot to lose by not stepping up and demanding that there be a place for him. Especially because of his Iowa and internet results.

 
« | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics


Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: