However unfair and arrogant the recent big media blackout of Ron Paul’s success at the first GOP primary debate may be, it is undeniable that the net effect was a serious boon to the Paul campaign and his supporters.
Effect number one: Big media showed everyone how untruthful and disingenuous they are;
Effect number two: Their machinations forced news about Ron Paul into the smaller online news outlets, blogs, message boards, and social networking sites, where truth, complete information, and the critical, impartial analysis of same are still allowed to exist;
Effect number three: Effect No. 2 above forced the campaign into an arena where accurate news about Ron Paul can propagate unhindered by official and media attempts to stifle it;
Effect number four: Their ill-concealed efforts at suffocating the campaign have riled Americans to no end and have made avid truth seekers and passionate, committed activists out of even the most passive members of the American public.
All this has led to a situation where, on the one hand, the vast majority of Americans still don’t know who Ron Paul is, but where, on the other hand, every single upstanding American who does get exposed to Paul's message immediately joins the Paul camp in disgust of the media and out of concern for the direction of this country.
America deserves to be rescued from big-state liberals and neocons. It seems that the under-funded and overtly shunned Dr. Paul is now well on his way to accomplish his goal, thanks to the very blackout that was intended to block him out of the minds of Americans. In fact, at this point, attention from the big media is actually a thing to be avoided for prudent Paul campaigners. If the media were to actually start reporting on Paul, their psy-ops trained pundits would soon make short shrift of any expectations by the public of hearing, seeing, and reading accurate information about him.
Big media has become incapable of reporting actual facts, figures and relationships. The media’s workplace culture has created a climate that foster reporters and pundits who use underhanded snipes and hard-to-detect, concealed criticism as a regular part of their daily writing.
A case in point: The by-now, much-despised ABC news distorter, Rick Klein, insinuated that Paul receives much of his support from Americans who are attracted by his “forthright tone.”
Klein knows that Dr. Paul’s strength lies in the fact that people just flat-out trust him because he has never once betrayed their trust in him. He says what he thinks and he does what he says, and all of that is purely principle-driven. Mr. Klein certainly knows that, but he cannot forego the opportunity of spiking the punch bowl with some media-narcotic.
If Ron Paul’s forthrightness is perceived as only being a “tone” he is able to strike when he talks to people, then he is no better than any other politician on the integrity scale. He may be more effective in making people believe in his forthrightness, but he no longer towers head and shoulders over his competitors. That tiny little word adds a whole world of insinuations to the article.
Such are the underhanded tactics of modern media pundits. And these tactics are difficult to perceive when one is reading a news account in a hurry before going to the office. Once the word “tone” and its silent, unexpressed connotation slip in under the radar screen, it does its damage in the readers psyche, unseen and unnoticed. A little seed of doubt has been sown and, since undetected, can do its destructive work unmolested.
For that reason, as things stand, the Paul campaign should probably avoid courting the media’s attention. Not only that, the campaign should actually avoid talking to big media reporters, period. Having big media cover the debates live is good enough. The Internet is very well capable of disseminating Ron Paul’s message of Hope for America. Big media always injects a sense of doom and hopelessness into everything they touch, anyway.
At this point, it is probably appropriate to make some predictions regarding the tactics the media will employ during and after the next debate on May 15th:
- As before, Ron Paul will get the shortest answering time and will probably be cut off sooner if he hits a point the debate host will deem detrimental to the campaigns of the mainstream sellouts;
- The after-debate “analysis” will probably no longer ignore Ron, but will attempt to cut him to shreds with the type of tactics examined above;