media manipulation
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
~Benjamin Franklin
LAST NIGHT I BECAME LIVID WATCHING THE REPUBLICAN DEBATE ON MSNBC.
As anyone who knows me will attest, I’m not one to get riled up too easily. I’ve been described most of my life as “mellow,” “patient” and “laid back.” About the only time I ever raise my voice and get visibly frustrated is when I’m confronted with rude, inept drivers in the heat of soul crushing, time killing traffic.
Otherwise, I’m about as chill as they come.
But last night had me wanting to chuck the remote at the TV. And I wasn’t so much provoked by what most of the candidates were saying—although most of them seemed as crooked as ever, pandering for votes and generally trotting out the usual empty campaign rhetoric that rarely has anything to do with what they actually foist on the American people once they get in office.
Who can forget George Bush’s infamous proclamation that “I’m a uniter, not a divider” who was “not into nation building” back during the 2000 presidential campaign?
What a steaming crock o’ shite that turned out to be.
No, it wasn’t the half-truths and empty promises spewing forth from most of the candidates last night that got my blood boiling. It was the media’s dismissive treatment of the one seemingly competent, honest candidate that had me seething—the one guy in the Republican who is inspiring the apathetic, waking up the disillusioned and drawing enthusiastic supporters from both parties into his campaign.
How is that in a debate comprised of 5 candidates, the amount of air time and the number of questions given to each candidate is supremely unbalanced. Mitt Romney, who the post-debate “experts” hailed as the “winner,” got over 3 times as much air time as Ron Paul? In fact, ALL the candidates, according to all the online numbers I saw, got at least more than twice the air time and twice the number of questions Dr. Paul got. (And this is a guy who came in 2nd in both the Nevada primary and the Louisiana caucus during the past week.)
But that was just the beginning. The post-debate coverage was even more skewed. I was so enraged I posted the following response on the MSNBC message board, something I’ve never been moved to do. But last night was just despicable and I had to weigh in with my take on the latest pathetic example of modern “journalism.”
“What a joke! Tonight's debate coverage was the most appaling display of censorship I've ever witnessed from any network outside of FOX. I wasted over an hour watching the post-debate "analysis," waiting for some mention of Ron Paul—who, if I'm not mistaken, was one of the 5 candidates at the debate. Every single one of the other candidates was either interviewed or talked about at length. The first and only time Dr. Paul's name was even mentioned came at the very end of the broadcast, when he couldn't be ignored any longer by simple virtue of the fact that in MSNBC's text poll—which Chris Matthews was quick to point out was "hardly scientific"—Dr. Paul received a whopping 40% of the votes...while 3 of the other 4 candidates were in the single digits. And when he was forced to reveal the numbers, Chris Matthews chuckled smugly, called Dr. Paul's supporters "legion", then promptly moved on to the next subject. A disgusting, sad display of objective journalism. I'll be sure to avoid MSNBC indefinitely when I go looking for any honest reporting. You should be ashamed of yourselves. And let's see how quickly they pull my comments from the message board.
Oh, and one more reason why tonight's post-debate analysis had me screaming at the TV and jonesing for some honest, objective coverage. Did anyone notice how every time they flashed the poll results from two different newspapers—the St. Petersburg Times and another paper I've never heard of—only the numbers from FOUR candidates were shown. Ron Paul's numbers were never once included. How does MSNBC justify this? Were his numbers so low, was he so far behind, that he didn't even deserve a mention? Then I crunched the numbers and realized that the percentages for the 4 "deserving" candidates in one poll added up to 87%—which means we can assume Dr. Paul got the remaining 13%, which is exactly what Huckabee received. The other poll was even more alarming. The numbers for the 4 listed "front runners" added up to 78%—which presumably left the remaining 22% to Dr. Paul, which would've put him in 3rd place behind McCain's 25% and Romney's 23%. The omission of Ron Paul from these poll numbers is yet another smoking gun in the case of the corporate media vs. the truth and the will of the people. I'll be letting everyone I know understand just how corrupt MSNBC is when it comes to being objective. I thought Fox had cornered the market in this stuff. How wrong I was.”
.
..
…
If you’re not watching how the mainstream media is spinning and manipulating this election you need to wake up and pay attention. I’m so pissed that these people are telling me who does and doesn’t have a chance to win—a full 9+ months before election day. Screw that. There are literally MILLIONS of us in this country whose voices have yet to be heard and whose votes have yet to be counted. How can these "journalists"—who failed us so miserably in their reporting on the Bush administration and their complicity in this unjust war—possibly know who does and doesn't have a chance to win the presidency in January?!
In 9 months the Ron Paul revolution will give birth to a new era in politics. The man and his ideas—for ending the war in Iraq immediately, for one—will transform this country in ways we’ve never seen before.
At least that’s my BOBtimystic spin on things.
Do your research. Engage in conversation. Ask questions. Don’t be brainwashed. And don’t buy into the manipulation perpetuated by corporate media puppets who are NOT looking out for the best interests of most Americans. As Steve Earle sings in one of my favorite songs in recent memory:
“The revolution starts now—in your own backyard, in your own hometown.”