Slashdot Mirror

...just by who they show and who they don't.

Early in Ron Paul's campaign, the participant activity was very large, yet he often got simply left out of mainstream media reporting. He was constantly described to have "a large internet following, but,,,,". It was a sudden strike of the obvious, where lots of ordinary people suddenly stopped swallowing the approved drivel that was being fed to them by the mainstream media--and this most likely HORRIFIED the media. It was a testament to their irrelevance, because the internet was a venue they had no control over.

He rallied far more people (and money) than all of the other third party candidates did, and more than some other candidates did early on. How popular could he have been with the media coverage that the "chosen" party candidates received?

Go to
http://www.ronpaultimeline.com/
and click on "blackout" to see the list.
Many times Ron Paul got left out of news reports, even when other candidates who had already officially dropped out were still included.
This time around at least, "the power of the internet" was no match for the "ministry of truth".

Also We Note: Ron Paul was commonly called a "kook" by news media--he was the ONLY candidate who had a derogatory name attached to him.
What were the other candidates' nicknames then?....


I didn't vote this time around, and this is the reason why--the one candidate who advocated doing things most productive to the US got shut out early on, and most voters never even noticed.
~

It's not "media coverage or no." Without media coverage, a candidate cannot win because without it, the majority of America will not know you exist.

A prime example of what I'm talking about from August 2007:

Fox news reporting on the Iowa Ames Straw Poll. TV broadcast top, actual results below.

Notice who was not included even though he received many more votes than two of the other media darlings combined. The networks have all done stuff like that since day one. And yet people love to cite how poorly he did in those polls. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how anyone without media coverage is supposed to poll well, let alone if they don't include your name to begin with. Again, see the timeline for more examples.

In reality though, it really has little to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with the media picking and choosing the candidates for you. It won't be any different in 2012 only because Americans won't be any more outraged at the media than they are today.

All this proves is that if you are denied media coverage, then sure, you have no chance.

The reason most don't know about Ron Paul is because the establishment has been actively manipulating America's choices. It has been blatantly obvious, but for those unable to see past the media's blinders there's the Ron Paul Timeline, which has attempted to document the media's concerted effort in keeping him out of the picture for more than a year.

Right.

Show me any third-party candidate who has received a proportional amount of media attention as compared to the two leading parties, and who had any chance at winning the general election.

Running under the Libertarian ticket would have gotten Ron *LESS* coverage than he has gotten as a Republican candidate.

Ron himself has cited that running Republican gives him a better chance at being on the ballot and involved in the debates, something he wouldn't likely have gotten as a third-party candidate. Regardless, the parties are really meaningless labels and your implication that Republicans can't be against illegal wars or ineffective drug policy seems to communicate that you're just playing into the "team" mentality.

For the record, Ron HAS gotten quite a bit of support (like the thousands that showed up at the Austin Rally a couple of days ago or the activities happening in many local government GOP groups). But if you only pay attention to the big picture presented by the media, you'll never hear about it.

The only reason Ron hasn't gotten more support is because FOX, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, et al. have all spent the last YEAR keeping him and his message out of circulation or distorting it and marginalizing him -- even going so far as to actually say or imply that he had dropped out of the race for many many months now.

Anyone who doesn't realize this hasn't been paying attention and is being manipulated. For an eye-opener, check out some of the blackout events noted on The Ron Paul Timeline, which has been chronicalling it for some time.

...The real goal of a gold standard is to combat uncontrolled money expansion. There are a number of ways to accomplish that without arbitrarily pivoting on some random and irrelevant metal....

MANY more example are documented at RonPaulTimeline.com

• Ron's name has almost never been mentioned and his photo almost never shown when listing the candidates since day 1
  
• Newspapers have "accidentally" forgot to run full-page, grassroots ads for Ron
  
• The media consistently has called him "fringe," "dark horse," and "having no chance" since day 1
  
• Repeated attempts to exclude Ron from the debates have happened
  
• A network re-aired a GOP debate with Ron Paul segments removed
  
• A network have run Associated Press articles with Ron Paul references removed