Why doesn't Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him

[ALawPoker]

He always seems to gloss over it when (sympathetic interviewers) ask him things like "You speak the truth, but why does everyone think you're insane?"

A lot of people talk about the media being biased or bad, but I don't think many people realize that it really is biased towards group think. Like, it is. There's no reason to suspect it wouldn't be. Debate isn't eye catching when you thoroughly examine underlying axioms to various questions and then agree that most things just depend, or could be interpreted in different ways.

The classic John Stewart/Crossfire clip comes to mind. Why doesn't Ron Paul sound off about these things the way Jon Stewart did?

Whether you agree with the Libertarian philosophy or not, I think everyone on this board can agree that having a politician in the debate who argues principally from his underlying beliefs, and then extensions of those beliefs, is a very good thing to see on the television set. So this is really the best chance we may ever see for a politician somewhere on the radar of attention to articulate these things.

Of course the obvious answer is that he doesn't want to piss the media off and make it even harder on himself. And I guess he doesn't want to come off as whiney to people who'd think he's just scapegoating. But still, I dunno. It's not like the mainstream media could be much worse for him. If he spoke his mind about the absurdity of the whole process (which I'm only assuming is something he does agree is bad), I feel like he'd do himself more good than bad, and work towards a good cause in the process.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he never really delves into this stuff other than "well they think I'm eccentric, and I'm not really sure why... to me, they're eccentric." I'd like to see him just spit out the truth, and explain why the media and mainstream thought will always be biased against someone whose beliefs aren't based on what's easiest to digest. He seems so willing to tell it like he is, but then seems to turn into a politician when this subject comes up.

[bobman0330]

He probably doesn't want to scare voters. People may say they want change, but at most they want moderate change.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
He always seems to gloss over it when (sympathetic interviewers) ask him things like "You speak the truth, but why does everyone think you're insane?"

A lot of people talk about the media being biased or bad, but I don't think many people realize that it really is biased towards group think. Like, it is. There's no reason to suspect it wouldn't be. Debate isn't eye catching when you thoroughly examine underlying axioms to various questions and then agree that most things just depend, or could be interpreted in different ways.

The classic John Stewart/Crossfire clip comes to mind. Why doesn't Ron Paul sound off about these things the way Jon Stewart did?

Whether you agree with the Libertarian philosophy or not, I think everyone on this board can agree that having a politician in the debate who argues principally from his underlying beliefs, and then extensions of those beliefs, is a very good thing to see on the television set. So this is really the best chance we may ever see for a politician somewhere on the radar of attention to articulate these things.

Of course the obvious answer is that he doesn't want to piss the media off and make it even harder on himself. And I guess he doesn't want to come off as whiney to people who'd think he's just scapegoating. But still, I dunno. It's not like the mainstream media could be much worse for him. If he spoke his mind about the absurdity of the whole process (which I'm only assuming is something he does agree is bad), I feel like he'd do himself more good than bad, and work towards a good cause in the process.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he never really delves into this stuff other than "well they think I'm eccentric, and I'm not really sure why... to me, they're eccentric." I'd like to see him just spit out the truth, and explain why the media and mainstream thought will always be biased against someone whose beliefs aren't based on what's easiest to digest. He seems so willing to tell it like he is, but then seems to turn into a politician when this subject comes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because some of his ideas aren't easy to digest, that doesn't make them good ideas either. He's got some awful positions that, along with his very non-Presidential demeanor, make him look eccentric.

I don't know if the media is biased or not, but when it comes to those in the public who are paying attention, it isn't bias, it's disagreement.

[j555]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because some of his ideas aren't easy to digest, that doesn't make them good ideas either. He's got some awful positions that, along with his very non-Presidential demeanor, make him look eccentric.

I don't know if the media is biased or not, but when it comes to those in the public who are paying attention, it isn't bias, it's disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is gaining some steam and is 4th in fundraising for Q2 so not all of the informed public is disagreeing with him. Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners. Every time he's on tv they dismiss him as "radical" or "long shot" and even tell him he's got no chance to his face.

Some of his positions aren't realistic and some of them seem very practical, but people don't seem to like radical change like he's proposing. The media up to this point has either been ignoring him or denouncing him, but he needs their help to give him good exposure if he has any chance to win, so it's probably best that he remains calm and keeps giving well thought out answers.

[Nielsio]

I'd say he is doing a pretty damn good job of balancing the extremist ideas versus staying agreeable and not opening oneself up for attack and slander.


He openly mentions that he wants the abolish the whole damn thing. He is literally saying: "the [censored] is coming down". And people love him. Now that's not an easy thing to do.



Also as I've stated before, I think Ron Paul is an effect of the internet, not the cause of current libertarian popularity. So if Ron Paul fails, then I expect to see the same thing happen next election, but twice (or more) as strong.


Ultimately: the [censored] IS coming down.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Every time he's on tv they dismiss him as "radical" or "long shot" and even tell him he's got no chance to his face

[/ QUOTE ]

Are either of these things untrue?

[j555]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think it's a little early to just write him off. If you look at donors and funds raised from Q1 to Q2 he's obviously making an impact. Not bad for a guy a lot of people have still never heard of. Let's wait at least until the Iowa Straw Poll to see if his internet support can translate into ground support and the end of September to see if his Q3 numbers show a healthy growth.


[ QUOTE ]
Every time he's on tv they dismiss him as "radical" or "long shot" and even tell him he's got no chance to his face

[/ QUOTE ]

Are either of these things untrue?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but what's wrong with just introducing him as Presidential candidate Ron Paul without adding the longshot or radical in front every single time?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
No, but what's wrong with just introducing him as Presidential candidate Ron Paul without adding the longshot or radical in front every single time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you be equally upset if he were leading in the polls and they introduced him as "Republican frontrunner" or talked about how he had a lock on the nomination?

All candidates aren't created equally. When you are on the fringe in your beliefs, aren't raising even close to the amount of money as the frontrunners, and are way behind in the polls you should be referred to as a longshot.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Circular logic.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because some of his ideas aren't easy to digest, that doesn't make them good ideas either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, they might not be good ideas to you, but they are to him. And the point is he holds the ideas anyways, even though he knows they won't play well.

[ QUOTE ]
along with his very non-Presidential demeanor, make him look eccentric.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 4 front runners are a woman, a black man, a mormon, and a short, bald catholic with a lisp.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if the media is biased or not, but when it comes to those in the public who are paying attention, it isn't bias, it's disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about the media being biased to like the left or the right. The way the media conducts political debate is absurd. It's just a shouting match of talking points between two people with different underlying beliefs. The media is biased towards the easily digestible belief. Rather than explain honestly what those beliefs are based on, it's easier to say them as if everyone is automatically supposed to agree with your axiom. So then you have politicians whose best strategy is to do the same thing.