CE Week #3: “Dodging scrutiny”
Our View: For better or worse, Paul outside media spotlight
February 6, 2008
So which Republican candidate for president drew about 900 people on 48 hours’ notice to a Spokane appearance on a snow-clogged day? The same one who raised more money that any other GOP candidate in the third quarter of 2007.
Ron Paul supporters know the answer, and they’re not surprised many people would get it wrong. Their attitude about Paul’s media coverage is nicely captured in a recent letter in this paper:
“The question is no longer ‘Who is Ron Paul?’ It’s ‘Where is Ron Paul?’ Fox News failed to invite him to the last Republican debate in New Hampshire. MSNBC invited him to their debate but pretended he wasn’t there. Other media outlets (including print) have ignored his campaign for president as much as possible, barely even mentioning his second-place finishes in Nevada and Louisiana.”
While it’s true that the good news about a long-shot candidacy gets relatively scant attention, it’s also true that bad news won’t be treated to the daily media inquiries faced by those with a realistic chance of winning.
Take, for instance, the issue of bigoted comments that appeared in newsletters under Ron Paul’s name. In early January, the New Republic magazine dug up some editions from the late 1980s and early 1990s and printed much of what was written.
Now, imagine the media frenzy had the newsletters appeared under the name of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain or Mitt Romney. Imagine them being tethered to a description of Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as “our annual Hate Whitey Day” or a suggestion that the Los Angeles riots stopped because “it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”
Would they be able to attribute the problem to “bad editing,” as Paul did in Spokane? Would they be able to keep the author or authors’ names secret when explaining that they did not write the articles?
Not a chance. They’d get the typical scandal treatment. Quotes from those newsletters would be featured day and night on TV news channels. Print outlets would launch investigations to unearth the culprits. Supporters would not be able to toss off the comments as old news. They would have to face up to the reality that unless a more detailed explanation was forthcoming, their favorite candidate was toast.
Such is not the case with Ron Paul. The adoring throngs continue to show up in person and spread the word via the Internet. And the money continues to pour in. That’s not to say that some fans are not troubled. For instance, libertarian-minded Reason magazine has written supportive articles about Paul’s candidacy, but the editors have made it clear that the bigoted writings are a big problem and they’d like more answers.
So while Paul and his supporters continue to clamor about media inattention, maybe they ought to be quietly grateful.
So Ron Paul continues to amaze me. After only hearing short clips of a few of his speeches it is shocking, at least to me, about how he stands on many issues. I was a little confused however at what this writer was getting at through the article. At first it seemed as though he/she was sympathetic to Paul being shafted media-wise, but in the last sentence (“So while Paul and his supporters continue to clamor about media inattention, maybe they ought to be quietly grateful”) it sounds like criticizing Paul for his “bad editing” comment. Besides my personal confusion, this article did make a very good point. The media is always looking for a way to tear candidates down and uncover scandals, which they tried to do with Paul. While reading this article I was also reminded of the Orchestra-Pit Theory. I think that Ron Paul has definitely done a good job at maintaining what is said about him though; kind of easy though since we don’t hear much about him to begin with. It is really unfair actually that the media will make so much effort to find any little thing negative, but cant find a reason to report about the Ron Paul running for president. Even with all this working against him though Ron Paul has picked up a significant amount of support and continues to do better than expected; one thing that is sure to get him at least a little bit of the limelight.
I feel that Ron Paul has some strong support well a few hundred people or so that could cram into the room to see him speak in Spokane. It is sad that one of the men that is running for president gets swept under the rug and doesn’t get talked about much. I mean he could get talked about for how badly he is losing but not much else. As a voter I would really like to hear what he has to say and wasn’t pleased with the debate he wasn’t at or the one he really wasn’t participating in. I am really not sure if Ron Paul would make a great president yet. It also seems nice that he doesn’t get bad publicity because he can really do whatever he wants and not have any PR for it. It also has a bad flip side. He really isn’t getting a lot of media attention in a positive way to help his campaign either. So over all its worse that he isn’t getting attention.
One other thing that I have seen with Ron Paul is that he is running campaign adds in Washington State. It could be a bit more beneficial because I haven’t seen any other adds running in Spokane other than Ron Paul’s. He is also putting up a lot of campaign signs around Spokane that gets me to think that Ron Paul might want it a little more than the men that or woman that don’t have to work very hard to get a lot of attention.
I never really realized how much the media is really covering Ron Paul’s campaign up these days. The more I think about it though, I have to admit it does seem like the media is doing its best to ignore and put down Ron Paul. My parents often joke about Ron Paul just trying to be funny, but this article sort of shows how the media seems to be doing the same thing and it worries me that my parents may be getting their jokes and ideas about Ron Paul from the media. Apart from this article, I hadn’t heard that Ron Paul had gotten about 5% in any state’s primary or caucus results. The point the article makes about the newsletters with bigoted comments under his name seems to prove that the media is not considering Ron Paul as a worthwhile candidate since they don’t even care when something worthy of scandal comes up in his campaign. This article most closely relates to our section on the media and its role in politics. It shows how if the media doesn’t necessarily approve of a particular candidate, they can basically ignore them out of existence. This is a pretty powerful gift to have when it comes to politics, and we can only hope they will use it in a way that will benefit our country.
Ron Paul is invisible. Like Waldo’s prodigal son, he simply keeps coming back. No one can deny he has support. 900 people to a Spokane rally is… impressive? I’m going to go with impressive. These supporters come in all sorts; white supremacists; bearded gentlemen with webcams; bearded ladies with webcams; gentlemen who pretend to be dwarves online; gentlmen who pretend to be ladies online; and the list goes on!
I haven’t been to the Ron Paul convention, so I don’t know for sure that these people are all as nerdy as I imagine them to be, but I haven’t been to a Star Trek convention either, and I’m pretty sure I’m right about the kind of people I’d meet if I went *there*.
At the latest Republican debate, the desperate tone in Paul’s voice was obvious. He went into his shrill rantings about the Constitutionality of the war, the economy, and immigration with little provocation. The other Republican candidates watched him with amusement, giving knowing nods to the audience once in a while– as though they were entertaining the thoughts of a small child, saying to the audience, “Wait, watch, it’s cute how he talks about government.” Ron Paul just isn’t getting respect.
Even though he isn’t the President, and even though he’ll never be the President, at least he enjoys the electronic throne. I hope it’s comfortable.
What makes a candidate viable? It can’t be money, because Ron Paul has that. It can’t be race or gender anymore; that would rule out Clinton and Obama. So what is that factor that lets the media accept someone as realistic? Maybe one has to adhere to a certain stereotype, plus have a popularity element. The latter might explain why Duncan Hunter, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich never made it very far; the former could account for Ron Paul’s failure to garner legitimacy. Maybe, at its essence, running for president is a little like running for ASB: you have to have name-recognition and a positive reputation to stand any chance.
NC
Grace you better not let Brian Baker or any of the other ASB officers here you analysis on winning a ASB race! To be honest the answer to your question is this, in order to be possible presidential candidate you need to fit the parties most popular stands. For instance a Republican cant be against abortion or a Democrat for it. You need to stand for all the issues but not be to radical on any. Hunter was to extreme on immigration, Kucinich on everything, and Ron Paul on…everything. Name recognition is important but also a reason for people to like you, a story as you will. Huckabee is a former Baptist Preacher, he has a story. McCain is a war hero, he wrote his story in a book. Obama a viable black candidate. And of course everyone knows Hillary’s story.
Lucas your Ron Paul estimate was pretty much completely wrong. It was diverse but everyone seemed pretty normal. Probably the weirdest people in their was the guy wearing the NRA hat, or me and Jordan. I agree that during the debates the other candidates look at him like he is some old crazy grandpa. But the funny thing is he is the one drawing the applause!
To John, Paul actually nearly beat Huckabee and McCain in Washington! I don’t think the media can ignore a candidate they do cover him but, when they do they always acted so shocked like him getting second in 4-5 states or beating Rudi was a fluke. It really upsets me that when he did better then Rudi in NH Rudi got invited to fox’s debates and Ron didn’t!
Ron Paul is an oddity of the presidential race. He has a few of the important Ms’ going for him but he himself isn’t getting anywhere. Of the three Ms’ Ron Paul has money and some media. Ron Paul’s supporters are all active young students who are willing to donate to his cause through the internet. The second M he has less of. He seems to have some of every type of media newspaper, radio, internet ect. What he doesn’t have in the media is the all powerful T.V. I for one have never seen a Ron Paul ad. I have seen Clinton, Obama and McCain ads but no Ron Paul ads. The last M Ron Paul has none of. Momentum is what gives you both money and media. With out it you are toast in the race. I have no idea how a politician get momentum but it is the life blood of the candidate. For the sake of argument I do have a conspiracy’s theory as to why Ron Paul has no momentum. Other candidates may be undermining him with bad media. If Ron Paul had gotten bigger than he is he would be a the best funded candidate of the race. The students may see something in Ron Paul we can’t but it is to late now to recover.
I believe that the missing piece in our red and blued puzzle that has not yet been pointed out is that Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He joined the GOP in order to run for president. When there is a Republican debate, Fox can get away with excluding the guy who isn’t a “real” Republican. Derrick said, “But the funny thing is he is the one drawing the applause!” Well, the best thing about Libertarians is, he’s the only one. For kids like us and the 100 acre woods, there you have it. Libertarians are attending debates with their mind made up, their support already thrown in the ring. Republican voters are still choosing their candidate because shockingly enough, there happens to be more than one to choose from. We know that money is the mother’s milk of politics. And we know that there are Constitutional requirements. The lack of *descriptive representation in the history of becoming President of the United States suggests that there are evolutionary requirements as well. Ron Paul is a rich, old, white man. What’s the guy missing? The R next to his name. Even though he has it for this election, he’s not fooling anyone.
*Descriptive representation is the idea that candidates in democratic elections should be elected to represent ethnic and gender constituencies.
This article “hits close to home” as they say. My favorite candidate as some of you might know (anyone who saw my holiday song video) was Dennis Kucinich and while the media mostly ignored him the only time he was mentioned was to crack a joke either about his hot wife (who would have been the first – first lady with a tongue piercing) or his belief that aliens exist (who doesn’t think they do, hmm). He even filed suit against networks that didn’t invite him to debates because he wasn’t a “likely” candidate and he didn’t matter. I find it rude and elitist that the media deems certain candidates not only “likely” but also “unlikely”, Hillary Clinton, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, MIKE HUCKABEE, all of these now front-runners would have been considered really really unlikely candidates in past elections. Obviously Ron Paul is a LITTLE more out there than most of these other candidates but still. With his AMAZING turnout in Washington last weekend earning almost more votes than Huckabee I hope the media begins to pay more attention to him and not just negative attention. The media, as we’ve learned is a huge influence over the American public at large and I think some people are not paying attention to certain candidates because of the negative of in this case lack of media coverage. It seems to be that the media is a bully to Ron Paul and I sure hope that Ron Paul or his supporters at the very least decide to fight back.
NC – Connection?
How does Ron Paul continue to attract supporters? HOW?! He’s crazy! His speeches are pretty much the same idea over and over (”We must preserve liberty; our government is slowly taking our liberty away; we need to stop it; that’s what I’ll do so you should vote for me”). At least Kucinich had the good sense to withdraw. Ron Paul, apparently, is not only crazy; he’s delusional.
End of rant.
I found this article interesting. I had no idea about the bigoted comments Ron Paul made (or supposedly made). Calling Martin Luther King Jr. Day “Hate Whitey Day” is rude, whether spoken in jest or not. Coming from a presidential hopeful, it’s downright unacceptable. If he’s going to be the future leader of the country (thank God he’s not), he shouldn’t be racist or even bigoted. Just stay away from the racist jokes, Buster, and nobody gets hurt.
I guess it IS a good thing for Ron Paul’s supporters that he doesn’t get much media attention. It’s a wonder these bigoted remarks haven’t destroyed his campaign yet. If these remarks were made by a frontrunner–like Mike Huckabee or Hillary Clinton–their campaign (and reputation) would be completely and utterly destroyed.
NC – Connection (Other than one of the three Ms)
It’s so disturbing to know how much the media controls what we as voters think, and how we will view certain candidates viable or not. Some truly great candidates have been forced to withdraw simply because the media decided they couldn’t make it far enough. Kucinich, Biden, Hunter, and Thompson. I think that these people were all great, in the sense that they were the ones that really did seem to have a great grasp on what they wanted to do, unlike some of the presidential hopefuls now. It is ridiculous how unfair the media is being. I mean come on, they need to at least invite these candidates to the debates. If Ron Paul did this great in Washington and some other states he needs the recognition. Not having momentum from the media really does have a significant effect on the candidates campaign. I hope that the Ron Paul supporters continue to show their support and donate money. It shows that even if the media does decide to ignore him that he can still continue on. Hey, maybe he will decide to run as a third party candidate in the fall.
Ok, I know Mr. Kautzman wanted us to kind of move away from the media and everything. But as we had discussed before in previous chapters media is a big tool in politics and there is not much that I have read that proves it better than this. Ron Paul has been pretty much rejected from the news, debates and things of that sort. The only place he really gets his message across is the internet, which is good, but in my opinion not as good as T.V. Another good example for this whole media attention wins votes, is my mom. She came and talked to me when their absentee ballots came in saying that she was going to vote for McCain. I then asked why and her response was that she had seen him more and didn’t know really anything about Huckabee. I knew that my mom hadn’t been paying much attention to the presidential race, but this is a great example to how the media can shape peoples ideas and what they think about a candidate. – Matt Powles
Derrick I know that Ron Paul nearly beat Huckabee and McCain in Washington, but that’s because the Republicans in our state are so completely confused that they don’t even know what “real candidate means” Why do you think even though Washington is not extremely liberal, we still seem to vote Democrat every single year? Personally I think Washington is a joke. The people who live here have almost no touch with reality. One of the many reasons I want to go to College far, far away. Another reason Washington is big for Ron Paul: Drugs. One of the items on Ron Paul’s platform is the legalization of Drugs. I know Spokane (probably one of the biggest cities for Ron Paul) for one has one of the highest drug problems in the nation. Lots of users probably support Ron Paul for this issue and convince their friends he could be a good candidate too. And of course he did better than Rudi in NH. Rudi barely even campaigned there because he thought he would just try in the big states. I think that if Paul were younger and had long hair, he would make a great candidate! At least he would appeal even more to the drug crowd…