The other big news of the day is perfect for burying bad polls. Huff Post is blanking it completely right now. On the front page, below the Il items, there's a picture of Gingrich above the headline "Newt Gingrich's Fall Has Some Conservatives Rethinking Their Choice" - aka - Gingrich falls to third, behind Romney, up one.
But as of today, we know the media blackout is failing.
In fact, maybe we should give a lot more credit to parts of the media. Judge Napolitano has been stellar and people like Cavuto, with his perfectly pitched neutrality have maybe helped build that crucial bridge to the (former) 85%. One even coined the phrase "The age of Ron Paul" - that's quite something from Fox .. or is there now a single "Fox"? I think there are at least 2.
One even admires the inner-wars people like Hannity seem to be willing to fight with themselves and with Paul in order to properly engage with Paul's message,
On the flip side there's the big guns of liberal media, whose perfomance ref Paul has been reekingly-hypocritical and deeply, betrayingly dishonest. I always assumed, in my facile liberal way, that the The Guardian for instance, would always cover a story like Paul's - it's so unique and personal, yet also archetypal, the guy is so nice yet difficult, it is perfect for article writing if you think about it. But the actuality is shockingly repressive, leading me to conclude there exists a liberal fascist Anglo-American sub-state just as dangerous as the neocons.
This liberal fascist substate, for example, got the Huffington Post to sell-out to it at the beginning of the campaign. This was the AOL deal. Abrupty, Arianna Huffington completely forgot how much she has agreed with Paul on issues and has never appeared with him on TV or spoken about him again. Likewise, the HuffPost has blatantly blanked Ron Paul. Much much more than Fox ever did.
And yet, again, in corners of the HuffPost there's a small number of writers who want to talk about Paul, and they also have made great contributions with ideas like Blue Republican.
So one might argue that the media itself is beginning to split.
But as of today, we know the media blackout is failing.
In fact, maybe we should give a lot more credit to parts of the media. Judge Napolitano has been stellar and people like Cavuto, with his perfectly pitched neutrality have maybe helped build that crucial bridge to the (former) 85%. One even coined the phrase "The age of Ron Paul" - that's quite something from Fox .. or is there now a single "Fox"? I think there are at least 2.
One even admires the inner-wars people like Hannity seem to be willing to fight with themselves and with Paul in order to properly engage with Paul's message,
On the flip side there's the big guns of liberal media, whose perfomance ref Paul has been reekingly-hypocritical and deeply, betrayingly dishonest. I always assumed, in my facile liberal way, that the The Guardian for instance, would always cover a story like Paul's - it's so unique and personal, yet also archetypal, the guy is so nice yet difficult, it is perfect for article writing if you think about it. But the actuality is shockingly repressive, leading me to conclude there exists a liberal fascist Anglo-American sub-state just as dangerous as the neocons.
This liberal fascist substate, for example, got the Huffington Post to sell-out to it at the beginning of the campaign. This was the AOL deal. Abrupty, Arianna Huffington completely forgot how much she has agreed with Paul on issues and has never appeared with him on TV or spoken about him again. Likewise, the HuffPost has blatantly blanked Ron Paul. Much much more than Fox ever did.
And yet, again, in corners of the HuffPost there's a small number of writers who want to talk about Paul, and they also have made great contributions with ideas like Blue Republican.
So one might argue that the media itself is beginning to split.
Last edited:
