1 vote

Stupid article at Salon: How the Media Made Ron Paul

Here's an excerpt in case you are curious about what this half-wit is saying, but don't want to reward the man with a click:

Paul has argued that major media outlets have ignored him because they are “frightened” by his unconventional views, particularly his foreign policy non-interventionism. This is not a baseless assertion, but it’s probably overstated. Certainly, a compelling case can be made that the most important media entity in Republican politics, Fox News, has gone out of its way to treat Paul as a nobody because of his rejection of the GOP’s “war on terror” orthodoxy.

But for most of the political press, the explanation is simpler: Paul’s non-interventionism (and the blatant hostility toward him from key GOP voices like Fox) imposes a unique ceiling on his intraprty support and makes it very easy to dismiss him as a serious contender for the nomination. The experience of 2008, when Paul briefly succeeded in making the press second-guess itself only to wind up an asterisk in the primary season, reinforced this impression. To his credit, Paul once again forced media second-guessing this time around, with his rise to first place in Iowa polling this month — a development that almost immediately prompted Fox News to change gears and shower attention on him and his newsletters and for the rest of the political media to pursue the newsletter story as well, with disastrous results for Paul.

This saga could cost Paul much of the new support he’s won since ’08, will make expanding his base much further all but impossible (even if he does win Iowa next week), and will probably cement his status as a fringe figure. The fallout will be more permanent than it was in 2008 or in 1996 because this time the whole political world is watching. And the reason the whole political world is watching is because Paul managed to reach polling heights that no one believed were possible. And he only reached those polling heights because from January 2008 until December 2011 the media pretty much ignored him.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/27/how_the_media_made_ron_paul/

My own comment: Kornacki assumes that the newsletters are every bit as incriminating as the media is making them out to be. He forgets to factor in individuals' own analyses. Therefore, not everyone will run from Ron Paul as he predicts, or let their opinion of him morph from "sympathetic" (his word) to evil racist ogre, as the media is encouraging everyone to do.

He also overstates the "shock" of the newsletters, failing to cover their release as political smearing material back in '08.

The fact that they were released at the same time, mid-December, in both 2008 and 2012 shows it was a deliberate calculation to knock him down right before the Iowa caucus, both times. It was not, as the author asserts, merely the product of his "frontrunner" status that the newsletters came under scrutiny this time; if that were the case, the same people wouldn't have been smearing him last election.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

the author lost all credibility

with this statement...

"the most important media entity in Republican politics, Fox News,"

The whole thing is Kornacki self-destructing.

Random comment: I'm surprised I got voted down twice, as my stated purpose was to SPARE other DPers the trouble of clicking on a negative article.

I think that's a helpful service- for one person to review a negative article, so hoards don't flock over to see what it's about.

thank you for saving me a click!

i appreciate what you did at least :)

cheers!

Agree.

Agree.