The Media (and Tucker Carlson) Arranged for a Nevada Brothel Owner to Endorse Ron Paul

and in this case they might not want to see Ron Paul interfere with a carefully choreographed Republican primary

.

I still havent seen much evidence of this alleged conspiracy against Ron Paul. Relative to his overall support he appears to get a fair amount of coverage and relatively positive.

The Republican primary is showing little sign of being well choregraphed.
There is little evidence to believe that Media ownership is against Ron Paul.

So whats the simplist and most straight forward answer - the media is biased towards sensationalism.

Here is another perfect example: Media Lavishes Attention On Bogus Internet Poll Showing Hillary Losing To Repubs -- And Ignores Reputable Poll Finding Opposite

There is little evidence to believe that Media ownership is against Ron Paul.
wow dont pay attention much huh??
they all saying his polls are fixerd
fox avoiding filming his supporters
tucker and his brothel planet
reporters constantly disparaging his name and movement
and lets not forget he votes his principles and as such doesnt get much corporate money as they know they can give hgim all the money in the world and not influence his vote.. and you have a hard time believign that the 12 companies that own our media, dotn ahve somethign against him?

I agree that the media is biased towards sensationlism.. but wouldnt that mean they would cover ron more? no the corporate bias is ovious and i can show many many examples of corporate friendly reporting or lack of reporting.

seriously if you think there is no evidence then you are not paying attention.. there is plenty of evidence.. now you can argue if this establisjes guilt but you cant deny the evidence.

Perhaps you could provide some actual evidence instead of your conclusions.

they all saying his polls are fixerd

Who is they?

fox avoiding filming his supporters

I said little evidence and one isolated example of local TV affiliate not liking Ron Paul (was it even fox?) isnt much evidence.

tucker and his brothel planet

Not much evidence as discussed above.

reporters constantly disparaging his name and movement

All candidates claim this. Ron Paul has some very out of the mainstream positions for better and for worse.
If you have concrete evidence please share. Isolated anecdotes and unsubstatiated rumor doesnt add up to much.

now you can argue if this establisjes guilt but you cant deny the evidence.

I didnt deny anything. I said there was little evidence and that characterization stands.

Who is they?

The folks that take screen shots of the fixed polls and filter them over the Internet for us to see. The people that make YouTube videos of the changes in the poll numbers as they happen during the debates. Everyone, geezzz, where have you been? Water is wet. Do I have to douse you with it to prove it?

I still havent seen much evidence of this alleged conspiracy against Ron Paul. Relative to his overall support he appears to get a fair amount of coverage and relatively positive.

I think that's true. I think the problem is that many of his supporters are so enthusiastic-- they feel he is the '"answer'' to everything that's wrong-- that when the media don't show that kind of hero worship-- they feel the media is biased.

Do I have to douse you with it to prove it?

Nope. Believe it or not, not everything you see on the internet is factual. Pardon me if I dont merely accept your assertions as gosphel truth. Do you actually have a rational argument with actual evidence that you can show or a link to someone who has made the effort?

Nope. I don't track such things. Join any Ron Paul Meetup. It's that simple. They will fill your plate with more instances of media bias and cheating than you may want. It will make you sick.

And a Scientology meeting will tell me the glory of Dianetics and the evils of psychiatry. Sorry, you need to do better than that.

There's no relationship there. Sorry. These people have the facts of each case where the polls were rigged, Ron Paul was left off the ballot completely and reporters verbally dismissed their own polls because Ron was winning. Sorry I didn't keep the links for you, but I did tell you the best place to find them, someone in your area you can meet and talk with, since

not everything you see on the internet is factual

Yes, Mr. Cruise. Thank you for your time.

Go to ANY candidates meet up and you will find people who will explain to you the many ways the media is biased against their candidate.

since

not everything you see on the internet is factual

Sorry, but not everything you hear at a campaign meetup is factual either.

Going to a political gathering and being spoonfed conspiracy stories is no substitute for critical analysis and actual thinking.

These people have the facts of each case where the polls were rigged, Ron Paul was left off the ballot completely and reporters verbally dismissed their own polls because Ron was winning. Sorry I didn't keep the links for you,

Please read the above. I take offence that you suggest I am not working on facts. I just mentioned that I didn't keep the links of those facts and that the place I mention had them. Sorry, sorry, sorry to infinity. Believe it or not, I do critical analysis and actual thinking. Just because the outcome is not what you believe in doesn't make me spoon-fed. You're argument is tiring, childish and personal. If you don't want to take the time to investigate, that's your business. Let's let it stand at that.

You're argument is tiring, childish and personal.

Your insult is tiring childish and personal.

If you don't want to take the time to investigate, that's your business. Let's let it stand at that.

I have investigated and found no evidence. Pardon me if I do not accept your suggestion that to have any knowledge you have to locate Ron Paul supporter meet ups and talk with biased people about their suggestions.
You may very well have facts to support your opinion. You have failed to show any at all. Pardon me if I dont accept your methodology as the only possible way to be informed. Pardon me if I dont merely accept your opinon as gospel then again you have treated my view and request for any factual support with contempt.

I guess we're both tiring, childish and personal. Tack on lazy for me, I'm still not going to look for the links. : P

He misses CrossFire because he doesn't get to yell at people near as much on his new show and James Carville still gets invited on shows people actually watch like Meet The Press. ;-)

Carlson seems to be a fan:

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=carlson+ron+paul&search=Search

'88 was a LONG time ago. Almost irrelevant. Although maybe he IS a big fan and wanted to give Paul an early christmas present ;)

Carlson is a thorough going libertarian who opposed Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and the Iraq war. He's as natural a Pauline as any you'll find on any of these cable yackfests.

Hopefully Paul will comment on this. Good luck on the spin.

Personally I could give a @!$%# less as I have no use for Carlson and about the same for Paul. So I'm checking out of this non-news thread.

Thanks for the stirling input, don't go changing.

Personally I could give a @!$%# less

Is that a medical condition or some twisting of 'I couldn't give a @!$%#'?
Either way it reads constipated.

Tucker Carlson is a whiny little MSM shrew who's political opinions are as relevant and considered and content rich as a Anorexic's bedpan.

He is a star in the same way as he is an anal wart. He's entirely an invention. You like that tie? how about this tie?
To take him seriously is to admit you are not in on the joke. The joke now in part is you. How depressing.

Carlson did it so the prior few hours were free. Follow the money. I bet that brothel is hopping now. npi

he should have stuck to the bow-tie

He left it at the Bunny Ranch.

Because McCain is part of the MSM now?

That acronym you keep using, I don't think it means what you think it does.

After watching the debate last night and how viciously McCain attacked Paul and the after-debate I'm more convinced that the MSM is attacking Paul specifically.

They've been doing it since the first Republican debate. They want him to be a laughing stock in this election, but I don't think they will get their way. Later they'll be talking about him as if they never showed any bias.

Perhaps instead of assuming that everyone must agree with the absolute wisdom of Ron Paul and your subjective opinion about what happened, why not provide actual concrete examples? You seem to assume that your opinion is self evidently correct - its not. What was so "vicious" exactly for example.

Your comment provides zero evidence to back up your characterization. You may very well be a very reliable and wise person, but pardon me even if I were unwisely to just assume that, that I just dont take these arguments from authority without evidence.

I am here to learn, however, I am not here just to assume the wisdom of randomly expressly opinons.

It is my opinion that John McCain did the political calculus in his mind and decided to try to use Ron Paul as a whipping boy to emphasize to the crowd his pro-Iraq stance. Furthermore, he pulled our troops into the mix portraying them all as saying to Ron Paul "Let us win! Let us win!" when, from the looks of what the troops are writing home, McCain must have avoided people that weren't going to give him the answer he wanted because there are plenty of soldiers writing to newspapers around the country saying they want an end to Iraq. I think anyone that uses soldiers for political cover like Bush sending Petraeus to Congress to defend his administration's war plan or John McCain insinuating that the troops are politically against Ron Paul to gain an advantage in a political contest is wrong. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the issue. On a side note, why do you suppose it is that more active duty officers donate money to Ron Paul than any other candidate?

As for what I thought about the debate, feel free to have a look at my column. I wrote a satirical piece and a serious piece. The serious piece is where you will find the meat that you are looking for. It's there that I highlighted what I thought were the candidates' best and worst moments during the debate and ranked who won in what order.

P.S. - I'm not a Paul campaign person or fanboy. Just take a look at the three articles I wrote about him a week or two ago on my column. It wasn't long ago that I was taking heat from his supporters.

Thanks for the reply. Your serious anlaysis appears pretty well thought out, although I still dont see it as much in the way of evidence of the MSM being out to get Ron Paul.

I share your view of how McCain uses Iraq in a disinegnous manner, but the media lets everyone get away with that and not just when Ron Paul is getting attacked. I suspect it has more to do with the tendency of the media to sensationalize, and cowardliness in general in calling politiians on this for fear as being called liberal biased or anti-American. The media falls for this for the same reasons that this demogoguery is effective in the first place and not due to some special anti-Ron Paul bias. They do the same kind of coverage when Bush and the GOP attack democrats on the same issue.

I think I may have misstated it. I don't think that the MSM is very interested in covering Ron Paul. They have to write stories occasionally like when he makes $4.3M in donations in one day. Otherwise, it's a ho-hum beat and they'd prefer not to give it much runtime in their papers or programming hours. I certainly don't think there is an organized effort to specifically get at Ron Paul, I just think that the media is disinterested in him. They don't like him because he isn't exciting and he doesn't really campaign nearly as aggressively as the other candidates do. I think they try to ignore Ron Paul for the same reason they do ignore Tom Tancredo: extremely boring. However, their feeling about Paul is starting to conflict with reality because Paul is generating news based upon the factors that cause the media to cover something normally. I don't think there is a conspiracy against him or anything of that nature... I simply think that's just the way they feel and the way they are. They don't care to take him serious so why bother write a story about him? And if you do write a story, you have to make it interesting so do something like on the debate where they chose the question asking him if he believed in all these crazy conspiracy theories.

It bothers me too that the media allows candidates like McCain to get away with such statements. The media and the Democrats both have the same fear that is well-founded in what happened in the 1960's during Vietnam and that is that if you question anything too seriously that opens you up to being a subversive of some sort or not patriotic or some other sentiment that the Republicans would stir the people to feel about them. Obama is the only Democratic candidate that does not appear to be genuinely afraid of this and that is why I think he is the best candidate to run for the presidency. Clinton and Edwards are too scared based on what happened during the Boomer generation to question military affairs but Obama is not of the Boomer generation and, therefore, the public would likely not buy that he is anti-American nor would he allow himself to be labeled thusly.