Dr. Ron Paul's internet support.

TVMH · #1 10-10-2007, 07:32 PM

In the same vein as a question I asked in another thread, why do some of the mainstream media outlets characterize Dr. Paul's internet support as a "lunatic fringe"? Why can't they just call it what it is: enthusiastic supporters using the preferred communication medium of the day.

Furthermore, how can these same media outlets ask internet users to visit their own websites if the internet is made up of mostly "loonies"?

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

AlexM · #2 10-10-2007, 07:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
why do some of the mainstream media outlets characterize Dr. Paul's internet support as a "lunatic fringe"

[/ QUOTE ]

Because calling them "intelligent people who actually understand what's going in the world" might actaually get Paul some votes, and that's the opposite of what they want.

ALawPoker · #3 10-10-2007, 08:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In the same vein as a question I asked in another thread, why do some of the mainstream media outlets characterize Dr. Paul's internet support as a "lunatic fringe"? Why can't they just call it what it is: enthusiastic supporters using the preferred communication medium of the day.

Furthermore, how can these same media outlets ask internet users to visit their own websites if the internet is made up of mostly "loonies"?

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I go back and forth between thinking MSM strategiery is a conscious, malicious phenomenon and thinking that it's just the natural result of a news station trying to satisfy its dim witted customer base. Most likely it's some of both, as the two motivations overlap a bit, but I tend to err on it being more of the latter.

I'm optimistic that as more people begin to use the internet and grow more aware of different ideas, and have a chance to reach more thorough and honest conclusions, that the problem will take care of itself. I don't think there are any deep rooted reasons why the MSM would be anti-Paul. They just have to be, because presently their clientele wants to hear that he's a loon and would be confused to hear him represented as a legitimate point of view.

Archon_Wing · #4 10-10-2007, 08:32 PM

I believe stuff that comes from the internets generates a certain stigma. The stereotypical internet user is probaly seen as socially lacking and probaly holds "weird" ideas. Certainly scary internet lingo (LDO) and internet chat room conversations do not help this image. Ron Paul supporters obviously download gigs of porn, illegal mp3s and software while going to Ron Paul's site and simultaneously enjoying their ill gotten media. (Oh, the internet has a use besides porn, mp3s, and cracks?)

Bedreviter · #5 10-10-2007, 08:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In the same vein as a question I asked in another thread, why do some of the mainstream media outlets characterize Dr. Paul's internet support as a "lunatic fringe"? Why can't they just call it what it is: enthusiastic supporters using the preferred communication medium of the day.

Furthermore, how can these same media outlets ask internet users to visit their own websites if the internet is made up of mostly "loonies"?

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link to articles or videos from these mainstream media outlets?

TVMH · #6 10-10-2007, 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the same vein as a question I asked in another thread, why do some of the mainstream media outlets characterize Dr. Paul's internet support as a "lunatic fringe"? Why can't they just call it what it is: enthusiastic supporters using the preferred communication medium of the day.

Furthermore, how can these same media outlets ask internet users to visit their own websites if the internet is made up of mostly "loonies"?

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link to articles or videos from these mainstream media outlets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just go to youtube...search Ron Paul internet support Fox News.

Tornado69 · #7 10-10-2007, 11:45 PM

Because the 5 companies that own 90% + of the newspapers/radio stations/television stations are all Bilderberg members along with all these past, present and future presidents/prime ministers. They all have the same agenda. Viacom, Time Warner, News Corporation, General Electric and Disney are the 5 companies.

Bedreviter · #8 10-11-2007, 01:22 AM

What is a Bilderberg-member? Powerful people are invited to a conference that is closed to the media, and when they accept are they then automatically "members" of the group organizing the conference?

Funny that at a time when people demand more freedom they attack a conference that want to be private. Should rich or powerful people lose the freedom to the same privacy as we expect? Whats the limit? If you own 10 million dollars you are not allowed to participate in a closed gathering with other people with 10 million dollars or more?

You believe that all the people on this list have the same (evil?) agenda? The list represents participants from a pretty wide specter of North American and Western European political parties and ideologies? Looking at what politicians from Norway that has attended you will that that parties representing about 80-90% of the votes in total have attended this conference, if they are OK with the Bilderberg-agenda then Im not very scared.

Bedreviter · #9 10-11-2007, 01:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just go to youtube...search Ron Paul internet support Fox News.

[/ QUOTE ]
I checked out the top hits, nothing special there? If this is what you are complaining about I seriously dont see the problem.

If you check out Fox News I suppose you can find quite a few negative remarks about the democratic candidates and the "liberal" supporters, is this a sign that the big powerful media is out to get the Democratic party as well?

pvn · #10 10-11-2007, 11:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the same vein as a question I asked in another thread, why do some of the mainstream media outlets characterize Dr. Paul's internet support as a "lunatic fringe"? Why can't they just call it what it is: enthusiastic supporters using the preferred communication medium of the day.

Furthermore, how can these same media outlets ask internet users to visit their own websites if the internet is made up of mostly "loonies"?

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link to articles or videos from these mainstream media outlets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Previous Thread