You’d take a bullet for Ron Paul, but...would you write to media effectively?

A substantially edited version of an earlier post. THANKS to reader input!

I am an occasional journalist. Let me suggest a few ways to deal disarmingly with reporters/news anchors/interviewers and the like with whom you disagree – ways that have a higher probability of ultimately helping our campaign and a lower probability of being counterproductive.

Scenario Let’s say a reporter mocks or criticizes or misrepresents Ron Paul, perhaps calling Dr. Paul an “isolationist”. What do you do?

Common Reaction: In righteous indignation, you jump to dash off a fiery epistle damning the reporter. You’re gonna defend Dr. Paul and Freedom against his #%$& enemies, if it’s the last thing you do! They can’t get away with this!

Wait! STOP!: Move your hands from the keyboard! Sit on them if you have to. THINK this through. How can you really HELP Dr. Paul?

Question You and I know that Dr. Paul is anything but an "isolationist". His policies would actually lead to LESS isolation. Why might the reporter say such a manifestly false thing?

1. (Possible) The reporter actually is an enemy of Ron Paul who is intentionally misusing the term to discredit him.
   
   
2. (More likely) The reporter hasn’t anything personal against Dr. Paul but his Boss has ordered a hatchet job, and “isolationist” sounds negative – even though s/he doesn’t really know what it means.
   
   
3. (Most likely of all) The reporter is a peon who is working frantically against a deadline to get out a piece on Ron Paul so s/he can get over to covering the Mid-State Dachshund and Schnauzer Show to meet yet another deadline, and s/he essentially plagiarizes what s/he has heard/read so s/he doesn’t have to spend time doing any real research, and voilà, the lie is repeated. (This is probably the major reason MSM sources sound so much alike–not some conspiracy.)
   
   
4. (Unlikely but possible) The reporter is neutral, or even a closet fan, or is fearful of punishment by Boss or peers. S/he ignorantly thinks that “isolationist” fairly represents Dr. Paul’s positions.

Your Responses Okay. Now let’s posit three versions of your response to the offending piece:

Letter 1

“You worthless piece of S–t! Get a clue!!! Or get a dictcionary!!!! Ron Paul IS NOT AN ISOLATIONIST!!! You don’t even no what it means!!! You MSM types make me sick dumping on Ron Paul all the time!!! No wonder you worthless rag is losing subscribers like water from a leaky bucket...”

You Think: "WOW, I really showed ‘em! They won’t mess with Ron Paul next time!"

Let's look at their real reactions:

• Reaction of Reporter #1 (i.e., Hates Dr. Paul) :
  The reporter is not intimidated at all. S/he'll is annoyed/irritated/angered and resolves grimly to attack Ron Paul even more viciously the next time.
  
  
• Reaction of Reporter 2-3 (I.e., Ordered by boss, or struggling to get out story quickly)
  You may have turned him/her into a Reporter #1 – a true enemy of Ron Paul.
  
  
• Reaction of Reporter 4 (I.e., Neutral to likes Dr. Paul)
  S/he may not turn into a Reporter #1, but will certainly be discouraged from taking any risks to defend him. Maybe even quit supporting his cause through guilt-by-association: “Dr. Paul’s a great guy, but his followers are a bunch of raving, foul-mouthed lunatics who…"

So, ironically, the blowback from your venting falls primarily on Ron Paul and on the campaign. That's not what you wanted, but that's what happened.

Letter 2

“Sir: Your article is wrong to call Ron Paul an isolationist. He’s not! And there are lots of other mistakes in your story. Why do you attack Ron Paul like this? He’s...”

Will probably just be tossed in the trash or deleted by Reporters 1-3. It certainly won’t educate them or improve their attitudes towards Dr. Paul, nor have any positive effect on future articles/presentations.

Reporter 4 may be a bit embarrassed by his/her errors, but feel helpless to change things.

This, unfortunately, was a waste of your time and effort. It doesn't do Dr. Paul any good whatsoever.

Letter 3

“Dear Sir [or Madame or, best, actual name]: Thank you for your article about Ron Paul. I especially like the part where you describe him as a “genial, grandfatherly type”. [Try hard to find SOMETHING positive to say, even if it’s just the fact they even did an article at all.] However, it is unfortunate that his foreign policy is inaccurately described as “isolationist”. Ron Paul is actually a “non-interventionist”–something quite different, and his policy of “trade with all; mess in the internal affairs of none” would actually lead to LESS isolation of America in the World. Respectfully yours...”

Reporter 1 will probably just toss your reply–but may muse as s/he does so,”So Paul actually has some literate supporters...”

Reporters 2-3 may shift a tad towards Reporter 4. At least they may become educated in the important difference between “isolationist” and “non-interventionist”. At worst they won'tbe offended or irritated or angered.

Reporter 4 will be encouraged and perhaps emboldened to move a bit closer towards the closet door or open it a crack wider.

What has your letter accomplished? It may have helped Dr. Paul--at least a bit! Yay! That’s what you wanted...right?


Conclusion
Let us be sure that the great time and energy and passion that we put into our letters to reporters/news anchors/et al help Ron Paul's campaign.

Sometimes when I'm mad, it helps me to write something on my word processor first. If I feel I just gotta vent, I fill that never-to-be-sent letter full of expletives and obscenities to vent my fury, thumbtack it to my wall, and throw miscellaneous objects and substances at it.

But then compose and send the polite, but effective message to those with whom you disagree. (Yes, even if they are #$%&* MSM types (who, you know deep down, happen to be human beings just like you)).

Let's become even more effective in our help to Ron Paul to bring a new age of Freedom. And that’s what we’re all in this thing together for...right?