Important Message about MSM for Ron Paul Supporters

[Thumper]

My .02...

Getting tons of emails is no excuse for not doing their jobs and informing the public in an OBJECTIVE, UNBIASED manner. Isn't that what the press is supposed to do? The fact is that it only shows that they feel they have the right to pick and choose for us what is newsworthy and what they will report on. And of all things to pick and choose over, the political process that we use to determine our nations Commander In Chief? Please...

I was watching "Morning Joe" on MSNBC this morning and they were pining for the days of Walter Kronkite. They actually said that things would be better if there were only two or three people reading the news and the American people had to just shut up andl listen to them like it used to be in the old days. Can you believe that garbage? I couldn't... in fact I was quite disgusted by it. Then they started complaining because they have to read through countless blogs and online articles so they can prepare a news story. Since when did researching a story become unecesarry?

Furthermore, the MSM generally asks for feedback from viewers/readers and gives us places to publicly comment on articles or interviews. They also slap their email addresses up on the screen and request people to write to them about anything seen on their show. They get feedback and emails because they ask for it. It's not my fault that Ron Paul has a lot of supporters that are willing to take the time to write in. Every other election cycle they complain because of the lack of voter turnout and the lack of involvement by the citizenry. Now we are involved and they still complain...sheesh.

Like I said, just my 2 cents. I have no sympathy for the MSM and I have no reason to believe their excuses about why they don't give Ron Paul a fair share of objective coverage.

That being said, I also don't believe that being rude to them or cussing at them does us any good either. Any negative commentary on what they do should be kept clean, and stick to the facts so we don't lose our credibility or make Dr. Paul look bad.

 

[Seanmc30]

I am of the opinion, if they spent their entire hour reporting reasonable stories on Ron Paul, there wouldn't be a problem.


Seriously, this might be a valid issue, but I doubt there is anything that can be done about it. We live in controversial times, if the media wants to do the news they should be prepared (and equipped) to accept "thank you" letters or letters from dissatisfied viewers, if their reporting does not meet our journalistic expectations.


Yet another reason why the MSM will play a very limited role during the nomination and election of Ron Paul.

 

[AisA1787]

If they don't want to receive e-mails, then they shouldn't post their e-mail addresses. Seriously.

 

[ChristopherBearkat]

It's never happened before... Alot of them probably don't know how to react.....particularly when alot of that email is hate mail... Other candidates get bad stories run on them all the time, but nothing happens afterward. They slight Dr. Paul just slightly and their email systems break.

I can see both sides of it though.

You have to admit though, Dr. Paul is getting more attention these days

 

[Dave Pedersen]

Rockwell is right.

yup. Rockwell is right.

 

[HarryBrowneLives]

The velvet hammer

I worked with the media on a regional level for Harry Browne. There are some really good comments in terms of dealing with the media. The death threat thing and the flame thing bothers me a lot in terms of getting better with the media.

However, I can tell you that I have NEVER seen the level of venom from the MSM toward a candidate like this here's why:

1. This is not some loon with no street credit, this is a sitting member of Congress.
2. This campaign was supposed to be over by now, not leading the pack in donations.
3. This is a real upset of the Republican leadership's overall adjenda in terms of policy and in terms of quickly and quietly annointing a front runner and futhering that adjenda.

This all adds up to the fact that they feel threatened because we are getting close.

What to do with the smear campaign?

We need to have good talking points against this smear campaign woven into letters to editor, etc. when those outlets publish this crap in local papers from sydicated or AP/UPI releases. Same thing can be used against (or for) the talk radio Neocons as well. It would serve RP well for us to mobilize such an effort in a professional way. Who's with me?

Why reach for the musket when you could use a custard pie instead? John Q. Public trusts the MSM about as much as the political class ... $10 million in two days ... need I say more? That, my friends, is the FREE MARKET at work ... it is not working for the Bush Replacements and thier buddies (if they ever knew anything about the free market) and they don't like it. It's embarrasing to them. Their dam is breaking and they need to try and plug the holes with the smear campaign.

Secondly, we need to get our mesage out to the public OUR way by any peaceful means necessary, letters, canvassing, you tubes, etc.

A decentralized campaign is very powerful, but can be a double edged sword. It is decentralized not neccessarily unorganized.

 

[Corydoras]

I think what the OP's friend needs to find out is what the MSM people actually think they DO want from their audience in this unprecedented situation.

 

[DrZ]

We should all send the MSM three emails apiece, per day, on days when they don't cover Paul, because omission is their greatest sin. That'll encourage them to cover him more, by this logic, since it'll reduce their workload. He's rarely in that CNN Political Ticker for instance, even though Romney/Clinton/Huckster/Edwards/Obama/Clinton usually get several stories per day. I think the flood of email is a great thing and lets them know we're holding them accountable to maintain some journalistic standards. By the sophistication I see in this forum, it's likely supporters of other candidates that are sending the hateful email pretending to be Ron Paul supporters.

 

[merrimac]

disagree with the original post

On the original post, I think that there may be some truth to that. However, it's far more likely a convenient excuse.

IN ONE DAY HE RAISED MORE MONEY THAN ANY CANDIDATE EVER!!!
WHERE WERE THE FUCKING HEADLINES?

I don't care if they got over a million emails had they given the 6 million proper attention. It's their job to tell us what goes on in this country and if they don't then what is their purpose?

They've been portraying him as a kook and someone who can't become the next president since day one. Now that they've encountered a group of people who refuse to be told what to think, the MSM has no idea what to do.

In my book, the MSM doesn't have to endorse what he is saying but they do have the responsibility to explain his philosophy correctly (not say he is an isolationist when he's not or point out one of his donars out of over a hundred thousand and make it look like he's a Nazi). The reason why they're ignoring him now compared to before is they know he has a chance to win this thing.

Don't get complacent. And make no mistake. The MSM is the enemy of every American who values freedom.

The American people = the banking cartel's slaves
The Mainstream Media = Our chains

 

[terryhamel]

Well said, Rockwell. The MSM is one big lie machine. Nothing will appease them. They are bypassed. If thousands of people want to bombard them with good or bad emails, I say go for it.

 

[peter_lifton]

His statement is total BS. The MSM don't report on Ron Paul because they don't like being restrained by the constitution. They would rather create and manipulate the law via manipulation of voters.

But of course saying they get flooded with emails is a great excuse isn't it?

 

[Anthony T]

We have a voice and its important to use it.

 

[Meatwasp]

No better words spoken by Rockwell. Thanks

 

[Hudder]

I wonder...if the MSM supported Ron Paul as a valid and respectable candidate...by how many points in the polls would he be winning? Can you imagine?

I can't wait until January gets here. Then we find out just how possible it is for them to ignore or slight him. Then we'll see what really happens in the blogs and emails.

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

That's a better excuse than the dog ate my keyboard, but equally vacuous.

They didn't cover him when there were no supporters because he had no supporters, now they don't cover him because there are too many supporters, they didn't cover him because he had no money, now they don't cover because he has too much money.

The MSM is not some kind of independent group of really cool writer guys and grizzled old editors who are tough as nails, but kind hearted , or Lois Lane/Jimmy Olsen combos- it is a giant criminal enterprise with less than a dozen owners who have an agenda and it hasn't got anything to do with the truth, being a watchdog over the public weal and judging from the catastrophic collapse of viewers and readership, it isn't even about the money. They'd rather take a loss than tell you the truth because they know if you find out how much you've been deliberately misled and lied to and how many of our sons and daughters lives have been spent in satisfying their larger goals and objectives, that you aren't just going to march on DC with your pitchforks and torches, you're coming down to Gannett and Time Warner and you'll be coming for blood.

They can't cover Ron Paul objectively because he is the death sentence of the MSM. Just as darkness abhors the light, the press cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed populace and baby, we're becoming informed- not all of us- on this forum I see otherwise intelligent people argue until they're blue in the face about how we ought to lay off, back down, ignore, put off or deliberately STFU about a host of topics because of how the MSM will cover us in a negative light- Will cover us?
Haven't you been paying attention? It's all they have ever done.

And think about this for one second, if everyone who ever dreamed about supporting Ron Paul became Miss Manners tomorrow, what's to stop his opponents and their supporters from continuing to 'go for them' in our name? And knowing how they lie, what's to prevent them from saying we are anyway?

You know the answer to that even if you aren't ready to acknowledge it.

No, the answer isn't in doing anything different, in fact, I'd suggest you ramp it up, I encourage everyone to redouble their efforts, let them know what's coming, because it's the end of the way things used to be. We've been disenfranchised and disenchanted, dumbed down and shut up, ignored and inveigled against, excluded and insulted for far too long.

This is our country and we're taking it back.

Yep. Rockwell is right. And these guys as well:

"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."
Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Convention, 1775

". . .In defence of the freedom that is our birthright. . .we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the agressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before."
John Hancock,
In his pamphlet, Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms, July 6, 1775. From Revolution to Reconstruction


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
Thomas Paine


"That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
Thomas Jefferson, 1774

 

[RonPaulFTFW]

It makes me angry to suggest that we are somehow to blame when the MSM won't cover the biggest American political event since the civil rights movement, because they are "scared" or find it "too hard" to handle.

It's just laughable.

 

[lasenorita]

I'm not saying that the media doesn't have grounds for complaint, but forgive me for feeling a tad bit incredulous. They're refusing to cover a Presidential candidate because they're afraid of getting too many thank you e-mails? Is the media too set in their ways that they won't adapt? They can easily set up an e-mail filter. They can create an e-mail address specifically for "thank you" e-mails. They can set up an online comment blog. There are several solutions available.

Our country has become what it is today because we have chosen what is easy over what is right. Ron Paul attracts so many supporters to his campaign because he has done the exact opposite. It's sad that a 72-year-old great-grandfather seems to have more guts, energy, and principles than those we've tasked to give us a fair and informative view of our world.

 

[apropos]

Rockwell is right. Ramp it up.

 

[NancyT]

snipped a bit:

The MSM is not some kind of independent group of really cool writer guys and grizzled old editors who are tough as nails, but kind hearted , or Lois Lane/Jimmy Olsen combos- it is a giant criminal enterprise with less than a dozen owners who have an agenda and it hasn't got anything to do with the truth, being a watchdog over the public weal and judging from the catastrophic collapse of viewers and readership, it isn't even about the money.
They'd rather take a loss than tell you the truth because they know if you find out how much you've been deliberately misled and lied to and how many of our sons and daughters lives have been spent in satisfying their larger goals and objectives, that you aren't just going to march on DC with your pitchforks and torches, you're coming down to Gannett and Time Warner and you'll be coming for blood.

They can't cover Ron Paul objectively because he is the death sentence of the MSM.

"Our task is not to tell the truth; we are opinion molders." - Walter Cronkite

This is our country and we're taking it back.

Yes, indeed!