Sunday, December 4, 2011

Ron Paul Places Second In Des Moines Register Poll, But National Mainstream Media Continue To Ignore And Minimize Him

In advance of the Iowa presidential caucuses to be held in January 2012, the Des Moines Register commissioned a poll to take the political pulse of 401 likely caucusers. They report Newt Gingrich with 25 percent, Ron Paul with 18 percent, and Mitt Romney with 16 percent. This doesn't necessarily mean Gingrich has Iowa bagged and tagged; 11 percent are still undecided, and 60 percent of respondents are willing to change their minds. But Gingrich is portrayed as being in the catbird seat.

The fact that Gingrich's rise almost mirrors Herman Cain's fall gives credence to the idea the Newt Gingrich is now the designated Republican "Flavor of the Quarter", as Republican insiders keep looking for a "Great Gentile Hope" to derail the so-called "big bad Mormon".

Yet if one reads the headlines of the media stories published since this poll and the exit of Herman Cain from the race, one gets the false notion that it is only a two-person race. Story after story blathers about how the Iowa race is now a two-man race between Gingrich and Paul. Even single-digit midget Rick Santorum gets more of a mention in these stories than Paul. Some examples follow:

-- "Gingrich Leads in Des Moines Register Poll, Romney Drops to Third", ABC News: No mention of Ron Paul in the headline and very little in the story despite the fact that Ron Paul finished SECOND.

-- "Video: GOP Race Focuses on Romney and Gingrich", Associated Press: Again, no mention of Ron Paul, who finished SECOND. The video description states, in part, "the once-crowded 2012 Republican presidential field appears to be narrowing to a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich". The omission of Paul has been noticed; as of this post, the video has only four Likes and 58 Dislikes.

-- "Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich focus of GOP race with Cain exit", Deseret News: Yes, it's an AP story, but the Deseret News published it, so they share in the blame.

-- "Romney, Gingrich proceed carefully in GOP showdown", KSL Channel 5: Yes, this is also an AP story, but KSL published it, so they share in the blame.

-- "Gibbs Pits Romney Against Gingrich", Time: Again, no mention of Ron Paul.

-- "Romney slides to third place in Iowa poll", Boston Globe: Again, no mention of Ron Paul.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and can best be attributable to a national media bias against Ron Paul. A Deseret News article entitled "Evidence of a Ron Paul media bias", published on November 29th, highlights additional examples of this bias. One cited example of this bias comes from a New York Times article in October 2011 that discussed campaign finances. The story stated that three candidates had opened a wide lead against the others in campaign donations: Herman Cain ($2.8 million), Mitt Romney ($14 million) and Rick Perry ($17 million). At the other end of the spectrum were Rick Santorum ($700,000), Jon Huntsman Jr. and others. Meanwhile, Ron Paul lies "in between the two groups" by raising over $8 million. Yep, you read that right. Paul is relegated to honorable mention in the sixth paragraph because he raised $8 million, but Cain leads off as a frontrunner in paragraph two with $2.8 million.



Back in August 2011, one journalist, Roger Simon, owned up to media bias against Ron Paul. In the wake of an Ames, Iowa straw poll, Simon wrote "I admit I do not fully understand Ron Paul and his beliefs. But I do understand when a guy gets shafted, and Ron Paul just got shafted". Even though Paul lost to Michelle Bachmann by only nine-tenths of one percentage point, or 152 votes out of 16,892 cast, the media immediately proclaimed a top tier of Bachmann, Perry, and Romney; no mention of Paul. Simon interviewed Ron Paul for his article, and Paul shed some light on the phenomena, saying “They [the media] believe this guy is dangerous to the status quo, but that is a reason to be more energized. I am a bit more challenging, but I am not on the wrong track. I don’t think that my ideas are more exotic. They are threatening.”.

Three specific reasons why the national media ignores and minimizes Ron Paul is because he wants to shrink government to a more representative size, ratchet down American military involvement outside the United States, and adjust the U.S.-Israeli relationship to become a relationship of equals. Ron Paul wants to reduce aid to Israel not because of anti-Semitism, but because he opposes the concept of continuing foreign aid, embracing the mantra "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute". And to keep the Arabs sweet, the U.S. has matched military aid to Israel with military aid to its Arab neighbors. It all adds up; the AidToIsrael website provides information on current and projected future costs.

Fortunately, the Internet provides us a way to counter the media's virtual embargo on Ron Paul. Paul's increase in various polls shows the word is getting out. But the mainstream media will have a lot to answer for someday.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think it would be useful if you list the media(s) specifically so we, the others for Ron Paul, can write in our objection. We need specifics to aim our bow and arrow.