Is Rush right about the media's playbook? If so this helps Ron Paul...

[Maestro232]

So I think the objective of ABC was to take Mitt out this week, or to just do damage. And I think they were saving Marianne Gingrich for Monday after the vote, after Newt wins or theoretically wins South Carolina, then they run the Marianne interview, and that takes Newt out of, and then who we left with? As far as they're concerned, Santorum and Ron Paul. And they think, okay, that's it, Obama's won now, and there's nothing the Republicans can do.

More: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2...c_s_plans_for_the_marianne_gingrich_interview

Now, I don't like Rush, but he often figures out what the media is up to. This is quite interesting if the media is trying to take out Romulus and Gangrene because they think a Santorum/Paul field guarantees an Obama win. I wonder if this is true. If so, it definitely helps us.

 

[The Goat]

well then the next step is to pump Santorum. because the media knows Paul would murder Obama. Rush is just trying to get Gingrich more votes in flordia, thats where he lives and has a decent amount of influence.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

All warfare is based on deception - "The Art of War by Sun Tzu"

You decide.

 

[demolama]

I just happened to listen last night on the way home and he hammered over and over the names Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich, a technique similar to how some students learn new vocabulary. It was sickening to listen to. He refused to even mention it is a four man race because Paul obviously doesn't count as a conservative in his eyes and therefore irrelevant.


Meanwhile he continued with his little rant about how he doesn't tell people how to vote and that they are intelligent enough to make up their own minds. People who buy into his crap are oblivious to the subliminal indoctrination they receive.

We as a movement need to push education. We need radio host on more stations promoting liberty. We need professors and teachers. Only education can change the course.

 

[Tyler_Durden]

I'm new to politics and I hear alot about the "liberal media."

Can someone explain how/why the media wants Obama?

Were people saying the same thing about Bush?

 

[UK4Paul]

I just happened to listen last night on the way home and he hammered over and over the names Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich

He doesn't need to tell them how to vote, because those three are just different shades of the same grey.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I'm new to politics and I hear alot about the "liberal media."

Can someone explain how/why the media wants Obama?

Were people saying the same thing about Bush?

There is no such thing as a liberal media.

The media is not pro left or pro right. The media is pro state.

Without people and corporations depending on the state, the news media would have no use as a propaganda tool.

 

[RPsupporterAtHeart]

Santorum crashes with SOPA, plain and simple. He was clearly feeling uneasy last night having to answer the way he did, and he STILL got booed. Imagine if they heard what he really thought.

If the establishment really wants to take down Mitt, it's at their own peril, because Ron will destroy Gingrich and Santorum.

 

[Student Of Paulism]

I already heard Rush say a ton of times that the Dems would love to have Mitt up there too, as he would be easily beaten by Obama.

 

[Liberty74]

Newt is not electable.

 

[Henry Hazlitt]

I'm new to politics and I hear alot about the "liberal media."

Can someone explain how/why the media wants Obama?

Were people saying the same thing about Bush?

Journalists tends to be lefties which is a more general thing about the type of people who go into similar professions. For example if you look at humanties departartments at universities they are dominated by lefties of different sorts. So partly the reason why the media has a bias towards the left is that the people reporting have those views.

Another reason is that journalists tends to believe that truly are objective and therefore shouldn't interfere with what the sources say. So what happens is that those covering washington are in direct contact with politicians and they are always pro state. In other words journalist get caught up in the environment that they are supposed to cover. Not to add that those journalist that are too critical don't get the good sources and connections.

Then you have another reason which is the corporations that owns the media. They also tend to be tied in with the state and in fact benefit of the state.

In America you have tended to have journalists who professed to be objective but this was was never really true. For a long time conservatives and those outside the centrist to left of center univers were upset at what they saw as a clear bias in the reporting both in tv and newspapers(New York Times for example). This isn't true in other places. For example in England everybody knows that The Guardian is left of center and and The Guardian doesn't pretend it isn't true. Likewise The Telegraph is right of center in England.
Here is some good articles to read on it this.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/24/bob..._journalistic_objectivity/singleton/#comments

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/01/the-media-arent-liberal

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/arthur_brisbane_and_selective_stenography/singleton/

 

[Todd]

There is no such thing as a liberal media.

The media is not pro left or pro right. The media is pro state.

Without people and corporations depending on the state, the news media would have no use as a propaganda tool.

Sorta..

Since many believe the ultimate goal of Statism is Collective control and One world government, then the media is a statist propoganda tool. But that philosophy is has it's foundation on the left.

 

[gb13]

I'm new to politics and I hear alot about the "liberal media."

Can someone explain how/why the media wants Obama?

Were people saying the same thing about Bush?

There is no such thing as a liberal media.

The media is not pro left or pro right. The media is pro state.

Without people and corporations depending on the state, the news media would have no use as a propaganda tool.

^ This. They each simply favor their own particular brand of Statism.

 

[Tyler_Durden]

Interesting. Thanks for all the input.

 

[Pete Kay]

well then the next step is to pump Santorum. because the media knows Paul would murder Obama. Rush is just trying to get Gingrich more votes in flordia, thats where he lives and has a decent amount of influence.

That's a nice thought, but the polls don't show that Ron Paul would beat Obama. I think it would be a really close election and I think the same goes for Romney. Even with all of Obama's failures as a president, we have to admit that Ron Paul next to Obama is a tough sell for a lot of people. Obama's cult of personality is still very strong. The MSM narrative would be Ron Paul, an old White man, trying to defeat our first Black President and turn back the clocks on progress. You know that's the way it would go down.

 

[Occam's Banana]

There is no such thing as a liberal media.

The media is not pro left or pro right. The media is pro state.

Without people and corporations depending on the state, the news media would have no use as a propaganda tool.

^^This.^^

Rush Limbaugh *IS* "the media."

 

[sailingaway]

More: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2...c_s_plans_for_the_marianne_gingrich_interview

Now, I don't like Rush, but he often figures out what the media is up to. This is quite interesting if the media is trying to take out Romulus and Gangrene because they think a Santorum/Paul field guarantees an Obama win. I wonder if this is true. If so, it definitely helps us.

Rush has this weird obsession with the idea the media PUMPS Ron which is so demonstrably wrong I don't even know where to start. However, everyone knows Ron is still in this after South Carolina, regardless of what happens there.

Ron polls GREAT against Obama, he statistically tied Obama in two or three polls this last week.

 

[sailingaway]

Interesting. Thanks for all the input.

The media is a special interest. Just like any other corporation. It is not entirely a monolithic special interest, but it IS interested in preserving the status quo, because it is doing quite well, thank you, just as things are...

 

[wgadget]

Rush and all the other pundits want Obama to win.

It's obvious. Ratings and $$$$ are all that matter to them. Oh, and power over the dumb masses.

 

[sailingaway]

That's a nice thought, but the polls don't show that Ron Paul would beat Obama. I think it would be a really close election and I think the same goes for Romney. Even with all of Obama's failures as a president, we have to admit that Ron Paul next to Obama is a tough sell for a lot of people. Obama's cult of personality is still very strong. The MSM narrative would be Ron Paul, an old White man, trying to defeat our first Black President and turn back the clocks on progress. You know that's the way it would go down.

It would not go down at all. People are sick of that meme. Media would try to sell it, or anything else, to preserve the status quo, but that wouldn't sell.