I actually don't think it's some sinister plot. I don't think it's corruption. I don't think there are some crazy marching orders. I don't think there is some conspiracy. I don't think anyone is bought.
I would like better and more examples, but here is one:
General Electric (which owns, but is in the process of divesting, 49% of NBC) is a subcontractor for the Tomahawk cruise missile and Patriot II missile both of which were used extensively during the Persian Gulf War.[1] General Electric also manufactures components for the B-2 stealth bomber and B-52 bomber and the E-3 AWACS aircraft which were also used extensively during the conflict. During the first Gulf War, General Electric received $2 billion dollars in defense contracts related to weapons which would be used in Gulf War and the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by Coalition Forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial–media_complex
Provide a Ron Paul reference calling things a "sinister plot" or "crazy marching orders" or "some conspiracy". Most of what we know is in the open and we can follow the money. Another example like the above is
CBS and Westinghouse. If you are a media empire owned by another corporation, it is a damn good bet your editorial content is bought and paid in full. Think Disney (ABC owner) and any issue related to the internet and/or copyrights. Again, if you want to work at ABC, you are not going to speak out against draconian copyright protection (which used to be far more toothless and like 14 years).
You will not find "sinister plot", "crazy marching orders", or "some conspiracy" because none of these things are needed. I too believe in Occam's razor and it cuts your weak-ass BS to effing shreds. I don't know your definition of "corruption" but these things would fall under mine:
http://www.infowars.com/study-confirms-establishment-is-terrified-of-ron-paul/
http://www.google.com/trends/?q=ron+paul,+gingrich,+romney,+santorum&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0
As Howard Kurtz (CBS host) said regarding the issue, "We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race". Simply, although individuals are given free reign and many would scoff at a marching order - rightly so - these individuals are selected based on their past. You don't need to give Bill Kristol marching orders. If you know Bill, you know his father, you know history, then you know what putting Bill on a panel is going to get you. If you want a different voice, get the Judge. You don't have to tell Napolitano what to say. He is a known quantity.
I think it's far more simpler and less sinister.
Owners of these media channels set a line up to achieve ratings or to hit on their ideology.
Full stop. News media promoting an idealogy could be the very definition of "sinister". If you think corporations have ideologies (Google's "Don't Be Evil" *snarf*), you are wrong and have been cut by Occam's razor again. Corporations have interests and only individuals have ideologies (like Ben and Jerry who run a corporation, Ben & Jerry's - they could be the exception to the rule). In some cases, an ideology is used to promote or market themselves.
In no case is a corporation having an ideology the simplest explanation. They have interests.
Those folks hired do not share Paul's ideology; in fact are nowhere near Paul. They think he has no chance of winning. So since he can't win and they don't agree with him they don't talk about him. Now you can argue its self fulfilling.
Research the
bandwagon effect to understand what they are doing. Roughly, the media is worth 6% in an election. It could be more or less but it is not trivial especially in 4-way contests. You are getting (-1) here for saying "he can't win".
If every media personality, analyst, or journalist got fired for saying he "can't win" or "won't win", then I suspect half of the media insiders would lose their job. Here is the thing. They didn't say these things about Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, or Cain prior to Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, or Cain voluntarily withdrawing from the process. These long-shot-no-chance-in-hell types were treated with dignity, a dignity they do not give to Ron Paul. Nor do their corporate bosses demand they treat the process fairly. A smile-and-nod to the right people and a cancellation notice to the wrong people. No marching orders.
You have to be a fucking moron not to see this.
I just don't think there is some memo passed around telling them to shut us out.
It is called broadcasting. You don't pass a memo. You broadcast an opinion or put it out on the wire and dozens of outlets repeat it word-for-word as if they thought about it. See Conan or Jon Stewart for examples. I would say it is a normalization of plagaring too. A newspaper will attribute a story to AP but that does not happen in the broadcast world typically.
I'd say its similar to how ESPN over-reports northeast sports. It's where they are located and they hire lots of fans from those teams. It's not some über conspiracy to shut out other parts of the country.
Trite. Polticals is one hundred times more important - I would hardly call sports worthy of being in the news. I wager on and enjoy watching sporting events.
The trillions government spends and plans to spend are controlled by special interests that are heavily vested. You admit this yourself but somehow buying influence falls under your "free market" umbrella ("Of course companies are going to play the game in order to boost their values, whether that is pulling strings withint he government, or stuff for the FED. I don't find that sinister at all.").
It does suck when Ron gets blacked out. But that is how the free market works. I love the free market when it works in favor of things that I want. But I love it even when it doesn't. I'm consistent.
When you don't mention the FCC, that makes you ignorant not "consistent". Broadcast media is not a free market.
And I'm a believer in Occams' Razor. When it comes to the "media blackout" I find it far more likely the firms in question are donig what they deem best for their value. Ron Paul supporters are generally poor and young. These media firms are built to appeal to certain demographics, which appeal to certain advertisers, which makes them money. It is called free market capitalism.
Promoting an ideology to control or steer government is not "free market capitalism". If we had "free market capitalism" we wouldn't be having this conversation. You don't understand the first thing about "free market capitalism" if you are ignorant of its absence in the equation.
What cable has done to the big-3 networks, the internet will do to cable networks:
http://www.adweek.com/news/television/niche-channels-take-bite-out-cable-ratings-135738
However, this is a
process but the election is a
race.
Ron Paul supporters are generally poor and young.
The young are the key marketing demographic. It is like the holy grail. As for "poor", well as someone closer to the 1% than the 90%, I can tell you that the poor spend more than me. My business isn't worth shit because I can afford to not spend money. Unless Ron Paul supporters are immune to the influence of advertising, there is no reason not to want them. I would be very surprised if Nielson breaks things down and discounts the value of a Ron Paul supporter. It could happen and it could make sense, but you went out on ledge with this one and you have shit to back it up.
I will repeat two more quote of yours:
Of course companies are going to play the game in order to boost their values, whether that is pulling strings withint he government, or stuff for the FED. I don't find that sinister at all.
...
It does suck when Ron gets blacked out. But that is how the free market works. I love the free market when it works in favor of things that I want. But I love it even when it doesn't. I'm consistent.
You may think yourself a libertarian or constitutional conservative (?) but you have a lot to learn about reality. As a taxpayer, can you tell me what it is like in
one of these 49 seats? No? Nothing? You don't know shit but I sincerely hope you get that you have a lot to learn. Admiting ignorance can be the first step on the path to knowledge. I would like to read your links and supporting evidence, if you have some.
