[NickMPK]

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?