Ron Paul on PBS 'NOW' - Tonight

Look, I don't post here much, and I don't think bickering is going to accomplish much, we have canvassing and delegate work to do, Iowans to call etc. but I'm surprised that people think there are two sides to this.
I saw the preview to this NOW program a while back, and after having seen what I suppose is the real, or TV version on YouTube already, I feel like I was given a bait and switch. The preview is unbelievably positive, but they took the best parts out of the full length.

Bottom line: First Impressions matter.

What does someone who knows little or nothing about Paul hear first?

That he's supported by white supremacists.

What happens then?

Their ears close.
After the introduction that gray-haired guy gave, they don't care about him. They just see that a kooky guy can get a lot of support on the internet. If anything it taints their ideas of free-speech on the internet.

Sure, they see a lot of things about how his campaign is going so well, how its a marvel and can be learned from, but with the assessment about his ideas being unrealistic, and the obligatory "he can't win" from someone who seems to be excited about him, no less. It ends up just being another curiosity.

Some people will see past that. Some will be curious enough to go to the internet. Some will be nonconformist enough to think that he's just the man for them. But they will be such a minority.

One of the biggest reasons for us to be angry about this is that one additional drip in the rain of disparagement. I mean the line about how Paul is not going to win. Its not just one person's opinion, its another installment of a continual drip from all the news shows and commentators.
If he was some odd third-party candidate they could have gotten away with it. It could be passed off as opinion. But now its just the latest installment of the big lie. Its not as if reporters are really ignorant of the principle of propaganda that tells us that if you repeat something often enough, even if it is improbable, people start to think its true. I think its not only very irresponsible for them to be getting away with that in a democracy, I think its a crime against this country. They know TV exposure translates to votes. That's why this money, this tea-party is such big news. By their rules he IS winning. By their rules he IS a viable candidate, but they are showing their hand in using their power far too much.

Paul is doing very well, but there is a chance he could lose.

And if he does- if, when it's all over they've managed to say he can't win just enough times to make it a reality I am going to be very very angry. What about you?

So is it more of an actual interview or a hack-job on our guy? Is it at least going to fall into the category of "any publicity is good publicity"?

Canvassing + Raffle = Viral Ron Paul!

I watched the NOW piece on Ron Paul last night, and I have to say that I'm completely shocked that Paul supporters aren't recognizing it for what it was; a Hit-Job on Dr. Paul.

NOW selectively focused on the campaign contributions that Dr. Paul received from white supremacists. Dr. Paul intelligently explained his reasons for accepting these contributions and denounced white supremacists.

How does NOW frame this (misquoting): "Until now (emphasis on "now"), Ron Paul hasn't denounced the views of white supremacists."

Are you kidding me? Had he even been asked before?

Then, to deride Dr. Paul's Libertarian views, they bring on an obviously Collecitivist Left-leaning college professor to sum up the Leftist view of the subject in a soundbite, while volumes have been written over the course of centuries on the subject, just so NOW can be sure that Joe Average is at home "thinking correctly" and not getting the "wrong impression" from PBS' "balanced treatment".

Please.

NOW thinks Ron Paul and his supporters are an annoyance and PBS despises Ron Paul's views.

Man, you guys should be tearing PBS to shreds. Scary.

Yes, I agree that it was a pretty decent piece about the Ron Paul Revolution. It plus the Mad Money interview have been some of the best coverage to date. The only complaint is they should have used another political scientist to balance out Professor Epstein. I guess, though, Professor Teachout was thought to be the balance. Frankly, she was great. I don't agree with her, though, in her opinion of Paul not winning the election. Without a doubt, he will win. Go Ron Paul and let's go to the Boston Tea Party!

I thought it was pretty good and well balanced. I have no complaints.

I am also glad they asked him the white supremest question. I was hopping Glenn Beck would ask him that so it would get out there that he does not support there backwards view.

They did a GREAT job of showing what we are doing, everything but the Blimp. But then that is todays news.

The few "attacks" were some "polticial " professor(whatever he was called) saying Paul wants to do away with helping people @ the federal govt level, and it isn't fair to all people(basically, fear mongoring , imho).

The "Howard Dean" lady.... she said'He can't win"...sounded more like bitter apples, imho, than honesty.

Overall...for people who do not know of Ron Paul, they did show some positive news. Some of the people were"normal"... in their 30's, and older, etc...not some kooks, as they like to claim.... did not see anyone acting "odd", or "nuts".
Lot of people holding signs, etc..

Maybe some more people will check out Ron Paul now?
I don't know.

In my area... I think PBS once said about 50,000 people a week tune-up to PBS(daily?).
That's just in 5-6 counties out of 88.

Someone's going to be checking out this Ron Paul fellow, I bet, who may not have before.

Look, I am one of the FIRST people here to get righteous and uncompromising in the face of half truth exposure. I thought that the piece was one of the best attempts yet by "fossil media" to explore in an honest way the DEPTH of the Ron Paul phenomenon AND message.

I am using this clip to send out to a whole batch of my more "sensitive" potential converts. it is just the right length, introduces some of the core ideas, and shares some of the PASSION behind our cause.

only sends people to the web for more information. NOW did a fine job.

They are the only media outlet so far that has identified the bottom up campaign.

Now, that being said, Now's audience is mostly social liberals. So the "college professor" accentuating fear of homeless starvation without a nanny state was just a bone to the weekly audience.

America is sick, call a doctor! Dr. Ron Paul.

We want our public TV to show all sides of a story. Of course they are not going to lavish praises on Ron Paul, support all of his issues, or endorse him.

They are going to address hot topics like the white supremest connection, which they did fairly and showed Paul was not a racist. They discussed his views and called him a libertarian republican--not just libertarian The show really was about "us" and how "we" have changed politics.

They quoted the girl as saying Ron Paul won't win, BUT NOW didn't say that. We will have to prove her wrong--donate more on Dec 16th!

They quoted a professor who disagreed with his dependency on individual responsibility and charity, but that is a legitimate concern. Ron Paul is up to the task of showing the superiority of living by the constitution and being fiscally responsible and how that helps more people in the long run.

We want to engage debate---not fight it.

I thought it was fair and brought attention to Ron Paul. I would be proud to show it to anyone.

I fear if we over-react and send angry emails then we will miss an opportunity to show the base of his support is civil. We work hard--lets not ruin it by feeding into the narrative that Ron Paul supporters are rabid.

We are above that. We raise money. We work hard off line. We will surprise the world. The world is depending on us to reignite the flame of liberty in the hearts of America and everyone else.

We are fulfilling a tall order. Let's keep working, keep pushing for media coverage, keep donating, and thank NOW for introducing the movement.

Remember this Sunday--donate and get others to donate. Better to sacrifice now while we have an option instead of later out of desperation.

I'm not sure where some of the anger is coming from. I found the Ron Paul segment more than fair. Positive, even.

What bothered me was the follow up piece, about an imagined "minister of the future" position in government. This was clearly placed to counter Ron Paul's positions. The very idea that we would base policy on an attempt to predict the future is ludicrous on its face. But that won't stop it from happening; see the anthropogenic global warming movement, and all the policy being based on inherently fallible computer modeling.

Taken as a whole, the tone of the show went from an uplifting profile of a candidate with genuine grassroots support, to the resignation (with feigned regret) that his ideas are too impractical for our "progressive new world."

But this is to be expected from PBS. They were born of radical leftists, and they will always retain a leftward slant. In short: PBS has a political agenda. See here for an expose on this.

Still, the Ron Paul piece was quite good, when viewed alone.

-Signature-
Liberals want to be your Mommy. Conservatives want to be your Daddy. Libertarians want to treat you like an adult.
-
Stop the Thought Crimes Act (H.R.1955 / S.1959) with one click: http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10596231

We need to let them know how "absolutely discusted" we are and expose these bastards that control PBS, I for one will never contribute to or buy any of the bullshit !!!