Shiva_Rodriguez
Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 27
Looking through this forum, I'm seeing a lot of negativity, not only on the part of what the mainstream media is doing, but people here who supported Dr. Paul in the past now rethinking their support based on something that happened years ago (that most people can at least say they didn't think Paul authored the offensive newsletters).
I don't give a fig what happened years ago by a publishing staff that had a nasty habit of overlooking things. What I pay attention to is what Dr. Paul himself has been doing for the last twenty years. But this is exactly what the media and the powers that be want to distract us with - and it seems to be working.
Here's what I know, based on my own experiences and observing others who are highly-motivated in their careers - People can and do sometimes bite off more than they can chew. When that happens, they tend to pass on projects to people they think will do a good job at keeping the project going. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. I have no doubt that Dr. Paul was too busy with other things to be watching over a small distribution newsletter like a hawk. He was doing things he felt were far more important to him at the time.
Here's something else I know - writers, especially columnists, tend to keep the general public opinion in mind when they choose their words. Right now you can still get away with calling Middle Easterners "towel heads" because there are a good many people who think Middle Easterners are a problem group. I'm not saying this is right or fair, but just that seems to be the way things go. I am wondering, what the general public opinion was like during the times that these articles showed up in that small circulation area? Did those words strike a familiar chord with people in general that an editor wouldn't think much of it? (Please note how some of the other candidates got away with slurs against Islamic beliefs and culture during the recent debate.)
As far as Dr. Paul not naming the author, I think it is very possible that he doesn't know who it was. I myself have worked on publications from less than 10 years ago and I can't name everyone who contributed to them... let alone twenty years ago. (And that's with being actively involved in the project full-time.) Not to mention that some people write under pseudonyms.
I think what is important is what the media is desperately trying to bury... that Dr. Paul's ideas and positions are actually beneficial to the very same people they accuse him of being biased against. I wish I knew a good strategy to out-shout and out-reach the mainstream media to get those issues out, but I'm at a loss.
Of course the media is going to put a spin on things and raise eyebrows at the "I don't know" response from Dr. Paul. They'll use any excuse to expose a candidate they dislike as being imperfect...as if everyone in the country can recall every detail in their lives from twenty years ago. It's a catch-22, because if we trumpet about how Dr. Paul wants to help many of these people by calling an end to the "War on drugs", the media will come out with headlines claiming that Dr. Paul wants your children on crack.
So the question becomes, how do we appeal to logic and get people to focus on the real issues and Dr. Paul's record as a Congressman? Keep in mind, a lot of these mainstream media viewers probably don't dig any deeper into the stories they see on the news and quite possibly don't use the internet for anything other than e-mail and entertainment.
I don't give a fig what happened years ago by a publishing staff that had a nasty habit of overlooking things. What I pay attention to is what Dr. Paul himself has been doing for the last twenty years. But this is exactly what the media and the powers that be want to distract us with - and it seems to be working.
Here's what I know, based on my own experiences and observing others who are highly-motivated in their careers - People can and do sometimes bite off more than they can chew. When that happens, they tend to pass on projects to people they think will do a good job at keeping the project going. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. I have no doubt that Dr. Paul was too busy with other things to be watching over a small distribution newsletter like a hawk. He was doing things he felt were far more important to him at the time.
Here's something else I know - writers, especially columnists, tend to keep the general public opinion in mind when they choose their words. Right now you can still get away with calling Middle Easterners "towel heads" because there are a good many people who think Middle Easterners are a problem group. I'm not saying this is right or fair, but just that seems to be the way things go. I am wondering, what the general public opinion was like during the times that these articles showed up in that small circulation area? Did those words strike a familiar chord with people in general that an editor wouldn't think much of it? (Please note how some of the other candidates got away with slurs against Islamic beliefs and culture during the recent debate.)
As far as Dr. Paul not naming the author, I think it is very possible that he doesn't know who it was. I myself have worked on publications from less than 10 years ago and I can't name everyone who contributed to them... let alone twenty years ago. (And that's with being actively involved in the project full-time.) Not to mention that some people write under pseudonyms.
I think what is important is what the media is desperately trying to bury... that Dr. Paul's ideas and positions are actually beneficial to the very same people they accuse him of being biased against. I wish I knew a good strategy to out-shout and out-reach the mainstream media to get those issues out, but I'm at a loss.
Of course the media is going to put a spin on things and raise eyebrows at the "I don't know" response from Dr. Paul. They'll use any excuse to expose a candidate they dislike as being imperfect...as if everyone in the country can recall every detail in their lives from twenty years ago. It's a catch-22, because if we trumpet about how Dr. Paul wants to help many of these people by calling an end to the "War on drugs", the media will come out with headlines claiming that Dr. Paul wants your children on crack.
So the question becomes, how do we appeal to logic and get people to focus on the real issues and Dr. Paul's record as a Congressman? Keep in mind, a lot of these mainstream media viewers probably don't dig any deeper into the stories they see on the news and quite possibly don't use the internet for anything other than e-mail and entertainment.
