There is a prevailing opinion in the media, from what I can tell, that not covering Paul helps him, and the more that people hear about his "extreme" views, and newsletter connections, and things like it, the worse he would do. I don't share the opinion, but I have a couple of fairly close friends in TV news (ABC). They say that's the talk around the water cooler, that not covering Paul is doing him a *favor*, because everything people hear, they dislike. Again, I don't agree, but it's not malicious. They do say the people they work with think he is irrelevant, and only projection of our wishes is what gets him his hard core support.
It's kind of absurd IMO, but they don't follow the reasons we support him as close as we do, I suppose. It's ignorance, in the dictionary sense.