1
1
1
::::::::
PETER'S NEW YORK, Monday, August 15, 2011--The media's manipulation of electoral politics is becoming so obvious one can't help but ask the question: does overtly biased coverage put some outlets in violation of the nation's election laws?
National Public Radio, in their coverage of Michele Bachmann's victory in the Iowa straw poll two days ago, Bachmann having garnered 29 percentage points, failed in many of its news spots to mention that Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) garnered 28 percentage points in the same poll. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, who finished a distant third, became a focus for NPR the next day, when he dropped out of the race, yet NPR still failed to mention, except perhaps in a cursory one sentence notice, that Ron Paul was even running, let alone that he had only been defeated by a razor thin margin of less than one percentage point.
Let's get specific. Yesterday's analysis by NPR political editor Ron Elving says it all. In a spot lasting about 3 minutes, Elving lavishes his words on Pawlenty, Texas Governor Rick Perry, Bachmann and Mitt Romney, but says nada, zilch zit, nothing about Ron Paul, as if he was a cypher. As political editor, this man calls the shots for the election news reporting at NPR. From this blatant example of misreporting, one can expect that, no matter what happens with Paul, Elving will do his best to marginalize a man who has been able to garner substantial support. In fact, in an online FOX News survey asking who won the debate among the Republican presidential candidates in Iowa, Ron Paul so dwarfs all the other candidates that it is positively embarrassing. As of last night, the tally had Paul garnering 25,319, compared to next-runner-up Newt Gingrich, 5,865, Cain, 3,170, Bachmann, 2,440, Romney, 2,376, and Santorum, 1,032. Paul is often characterized as the candidate who has a lot of internet support but who lacks "real" support. Are we to believe that the other candidates are so inept, so incompetent, that they fall behind in internet savvy to the degree indicated in the FOX internet poll?
The reason for NPR's Elving skipping over Paul has to be right-in-your-face obvious. NPR knows that even a single mention of Paul's name is big advertising for his candidacy. Not mentioning it further erodes his chances of success. Instead of discussing Paul's toe-to-toe with Bachman, NPR chose to lavish their attention on Perry, who just entered the race, and on Romney--both of whom are is really among the perrennnial props, meaningless strawmen with literally zero name recognition and traction among American voters--whose purpose is merely to buy time while the elections are manipulated--another customary three-card monte game that taxpayers are footing the bill for, through public funding of NPR.
It first became apparent to me that the media was following a script for the electoral cycle ever since Dick Morris conducted an online poll after a televised debate among contenders for the Republican slot in the 2000 presidential election cycle. African American economics pundit Alan Keyes was the clear victor in the debate. But this result was virtually snuffed out, and I wondered at the time why this should be. I concluded that, if the results didn't conform to a script, they didn't get publicized. In other words, the media plays by a pre-ordained storyline.
I would like to add another speculation that I have adopted as a working hypothesis, which is that there is a power-sharing agreement between Republicans and Democrats--two presidential terms for the Republicans, followed by two terms for the Democrats. All of what we witness during the election cycle, according to this hypothesis, is so much window dressing. The chosen man--according to this working theory it is Obama in the current presidential election cycle--is guided into position seamlessly, using any number of levers that interfere with the electoral process while keeping up the appearance of fair elections.
One crucial part of such a strategy is the careful crafting of the flawed ticket. Two lollypops are presented. One has a fly on it. Which one would you choose? Of course, the lollypop without the fly; thus, the importance of crafting the flawed ticket in order to make the choice for Americans simple.
The flawed ticket in 2000 was not particularly clear. It was more apparent in the 2004 race, where the Democrats put up Sen. John Kerry, who trotted out his disheveled and allegedly alcoholic wife the requisite number of times for her to be compared with the impeccably attired Laura Bush. In 2008, the shoe was on the other foot. John McCain, already known for his well-publicized capture and imprisonment by the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war, has been characterized as high strung and apt to fly off the handle. His running mate was the loud-mouthed Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, whose daughter had a baby out of wedlock. In other words, the lollypop with the fly on it.
If I remember correctly, McCain magically, inexplicably, jumped to the top of the pack of GOP contenders after languishing in the background for months. Just in time to clinch the Republican nomination.
Of course the manipulation of media coverage is crucial to the staging of the election cycle at all stages. The missing Ron Paul is a prime, and terribly obvious, example of this. When Paul does overwhelmingly well in a poll, the effort is sure not to be publicized. Rather, news turns to the cardboard cutouts Romney and Perry. Paul is just not written into the script.
In the event the flawed ticket still doesn't quite do the trick, most voting machines are computerized and fully hackable. There are other ways to manipulate the results on election night, which we have all heard about, such as causing voting disruptions in the flawed ticket's districts. If all else fails, assassination, I am sure, can be implemented to remove a troublesome candidate that is disrupting the script. We've seen assassination eliminate a troublesome presidential candidate before, namely, Sen. Robert Kennedy.
The problem is that we all cry foul after election night. Isn't it a little too late by then? If it is so obvous that the news is manipulated to exclude Paul from this presidential election cycle, no matter how popular he is, what other news is being distorted beyond recognition by these propaganda outlets posing as journalistic endeavors? Let's demand Elving's resignation from NPR, and have an investigation into whether election laws have been violated through the deliberate burying by the media of Paul's successes in this election cycle, among other obvious manipulations.
(In finishing this essay, I was gratified to find that a Politico columnist has covered much the same ground in this excellent essay, and that Alex Jones covered the same phenomenon in his daily radio program.)
