[ QUOTE ]
The media does have to make some sort of determination for how much coverage they should give each candidate. They can't cover 25 candidates equally; this would be doing a disservice to the public by crowding out the truly "relevant" candidates (that is, the candidates who would have a chance to win if they were given equal coverage) with "noise" from candidates who would never have a shot no matter how much media attention they got.
I think ideology is one factor among many that determines how viable the media thinks a candidate will be. Paul is at the bottom-end of the field in terms of many other factors, like poll numbers and qualifications. As far as these go, Paul probably ranks just a notch below Dennis Kucinich.
You're right that his ideology has probably hurt him also. But there is some justificiation for this. Paul is much farther out of the mainstream in terms of ideology that Kucinich, and certainly farther out than the 3rd tier conservatives like Huckabee and Brownback.
Do you think that Lyndon LaRouche deserved equal media attention all those times he ran for the Democratic nod? Of course not; his ideology disqualifies him immediately in the minds of 95% of Americans. Why should the media cover someone who would have no chance even if he were the only candidate the media covered?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not really talking about media "attention," certainly I agree that you have to focus on the front runners. I'm just talking about the way his ideas are introduced when they do talk about him. People in the media, while they might not share certain "extremist" beliefs, (should) understand what the beliefs are based on. But when someone doesn't fit the talking points of one of the two parties, this throws the audience for a loop, so the interviewer will play along and maintain (either implicitly or explicitly) that these views are insane. So the effect is that the media helps polarize towards the two major parties because that's more entertaining than challenging the audience and making them question certain assumptions.
It's impossible for anyone to win an election if their views aren't mostly the agreed upon talking points for each party. That's just the way it is has to be. The two parties are coalitions of views, so the politicians' goal when he speaks is to resonate with as many, and alienate as few, of his supporters as possible. His beliefs aren't necessarily based logically on other beliefs. And the media panders to this, because it plays well for their purpose of catching people's interest. But it's not honest. Do you agree with this?
Here, I'll link the Jon Stewart clip, cause I don't seem to be getting my point across:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8
The full version is the first one on the playlist to the right.