Campaign: Why aren't you fighting back? Name names: Fox, CNN, Rush, Hannity, Levine

[Publicani]

Ron Paul should say something about media blackout and negativity in debate. Say it forcefully. Name names. Ron, you still have a chance.

"Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the circumstances, when it’s all said and done, is the repeating pattern of open censorship and total demonization toward Ron Paul’s campaign by the media. He’s always referred to as “unelectable, racist, or dangerous,” or any number of attacks, while generally making a mockery of his ideals and supporters, even though his anti-war, pro-civil liberty, limited-constitutional government, and sound economic policies are all very popular in general with the American people."

http://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-in-denver/iowa-vote-fraud-official

 

[OrbitzXT]

I agree, he's never going to break out and get more support than he already has if he doesn't make a big moment somewhere. The media censors him so badly that those who aren't already supporters don't hear his message.

 

[Danjlion7]

And how could Rand Paul tell medved last week that he would absolutely endorse the republican nominee when the good Senator Davis pointed out how bad Newt is. Would Rand honestly support Newt if he won?????? Very confusing!!!!

 

[bcreps85]

And how could Rand Paul tell medved last week that he would absolutely endorse the republican nominee when the good Senator Davis pointed out how bad Newt is. Would Rand honestly support Newt if he won?????? Very confusing!!!!

Rand's vote is private. Saying it and doing it are entirely different. Playing along, to some extent, keeps a target off of his back.

To the OP...yes, something needs to be done about the media, but I don't think anyone has any ideas at this point. We all know that if Ron Paul outright calls them on it, he'll be called a "kook" and marginalized even more than he already is...

 

[Lord Xar]

What does he have to loose? Less coverage?
I mean he could literally call out the instances in msm when 4 days out the media goes silent and tie that in how most voters wait till the of to vote.

 

[bcreps85]

What does he have to loose? Less coverage?
I mean he could literally call out the instances in msm when 4 days out the media goes silent and tie that in how most voters wait till the of to vote.

Keep in mind that last time around the MSM did their best to write us off as conspiracy theorists wearing tinfoil hats afraid of the CFR and Bilderberg group, etc etc. I suspect that rather than a blackout, they'd retreat to that kind of rhetoric again and likely cost us votes. Blacking us out at least doesn't send us backwards...

Still, I've seen stories printed with outright lies. Although I understand that they can cover what they want when they want, I am surprised nobody can hit them with a lawsuit when they lie...

 

[sparebulb]

The mainstream media and the bought and paid for radio shills are dying. They know it, we know it, and Ron knows it.

RP is far wiser than me, and I think he has a plan. It might be as simple as letting these bastards just burn themselves out. Just look at the gains RP has made with getting his message across in the last four years.

 

[WD-NY]

It's only ok when Newt attacks the media /sarcasm

(the reason attacking the media works for newt is that when he attacks his tone of voice is angry, gruff, tough, stern and brimming with righteous indignation. When Ron attacks his voice often goes into 'aww shucks' and/or high pitch mode'. He sounded very bad/soft during last weeks FOX debate but very good/strong during CNN's debate. So it's hit or miss... but the ability to hit the right notes is certainly there).

 

[muh_roads]

At this point I am willing to try any tactic that would seem abnormal and unconventional. Like the poster above said. What does he have to lose?

Republicans used to despise what they deemed "the liberal media" in the 90's. Expose them. More distrust needs to be instilled IMO.

 

[bcreps85]

At this point I am willing to try any tactic that would seem abnormal and unconventional. Like the poster above said. What does he have to lose?

Republicans used to despise what they deemed "the liberal media" in the 90's. Expose them. More distrust needs to be instilled IMO.

Attacking "liberal" news sources might be one way to play it. If it got any pressure on them and they actually started covering him better, then the rest *might* have to follow. I wouldn't bet on it, but I guess it's a thought...

 

[No Free Beer]

no. Ron is doing what he needs to do. They, the media, are scared shitless. This is perfect.

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

I said about a month ago that the campaign surrogates should be actively addressing the lies the media is telling about Ron Paul's positions and about his candidacy. He himself shouldn't strike out at the media as a whole for unfair treatment, because that sounds like whining. Just have his people hold them accountable on issues and facts. That's what they're supposed to be getting paid for.

 

[jbuttell]

Ron Paul should say something about media blackout and negativity in debate. Say it forcefully. Name names. Ron, you still have a chance.

"Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the circumstances, when it’s all said and done, is the repeating pattern of open censorship and total demonization toward Ron Paul’s campaign by the media. He’s always referred to as “unelectable, racist, or dangerous,” or any number of attacks, while generally making a mockery of his ideals and supporters, even though his anti-war, pro-civil liberty, limited-constitutional government, and sound economic policies are all very popular in general with the American people."

http://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-in-denver/iowa-vote-fraud-official

No, bad idea. You don't want those hosts to start disliking Paul. They might start spewing nothing but disinformation and hate...

 

[chadhb]

refering to the movie "They live", just because we have the sunglasses on, doesnt mean they will just give up their control or be fair about anything. We are the enemy, never forget. Besides half of our sunglasses, are malfuncting.

 

[Barrex]

And why wouldnt we do something about it instead just telling Ron what he should do?

 

[Lord Xar]

Would be nice if someone walked up to the panel during the middle and said
"Is there a reason you are blatantly ignoring Ron Paul? I want to make my own choices, not have you force who you want to win on me.. are you afraid of the only pro-peace, anti-bailout, anti-federal reserve candidate speaking? Treat everyone equally!"

 

[hammy]

Get me a debate in PA and I'll gladly run up to the panel and say something. It's my dream. I think about it all the time.

 

[D.A.S.]

To understand why the media doesn't cover Ron Paul, you have to understand their market a little bit. They just don't see any exciting potential for a story with Ron Paul. He's 100% good guy 100% of the time - that isn't attractive to news media who rely on selling sensationalist stuff to the masses. Newt is a gold mine for them, so they want to cover him. Covering Ron is like covering local volunteers helping at homeless shelters - do you see those types of stories very often on national news? I'd say with about the same frequency you see Ron Paul on national media.

How do we change the media coverage of Ron Paul? We have to give them a story. It needs to be something dramatic he says at the debate - some dramatic comeback or something directed at Newt. For example, if Ron Paul said something like "Speaker Gingrich, you have supported the bailouts, you have supported internet censorship, you have taken taxpayer money from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac - You, Sir, Are a Hypocrite and a Liar." Now THAT would propel Ron Paul to quite possibly #1 in the polls and get the media covering this 24/7.

 

[chadhb]

To understand why the media doesn't cover Ron Paul, you have to understand their market a little bit. They just don't see any exciting potential for a story with Ron Paul. He's 100% good guy 100% of the time - that isn't attractive to news media who rely on selling sensationalist stuff to the masses. Newt is a gold mine for them, so they want to cover him. Covering Ron is like covering local volunteers helping at homeless shelters - do you see those types of stories very often on national news? I'd say with about the same frequency you see Ron Paul on national media.

How do we change the media coverage of Ron Paul? We have to give them a story. It needs to be something dramatic he says at the debate - some dramatic comeback or something directed at Newt. For example, if Ron Paul said something like "Speaker Gingrich, you have supported the bailouts, you have supported internet censorship, you have taken taxpayer money from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac - You, Sir, Are a Hypocrite and a Liar." Now THAT would propel Ron Paul to quite possibly #1 in the polls and get the media covering this 24/7.

That is pretty niave, they don't cover Ron, because he's not a Isreal firster, end of story.

 

[moonshine5757]

I agree Ron needs to be much more vocal about the media bias.