The Audacity of Hopelessness

Interesting explanation from a friend of mine, James Knowles, when I asked reasoning for "blackout" of Ron Paul. Here is his insightful explanation:

"Today newspapers, TV, etc. are run by statists. The newspapers a hundred years ago, as bad as they some were for yellow journalism, weren't generally run by statists.

The modern myth of "objective journalism" is a new thing. Especially back during the Founder's era, papers were open about what ideas they supported, what they talked about and reported, etc.

As statists took over papers here in the last decades, they took pains to hide their biases because Joe Average still retained some belief in American ideals.

The news outlets started to say that they are *cough* "objective" and must tell "both sides" (i.e. only their side) of a story. That's just a nice way to present one's biases while trying to look superhuman (unbiased).

It's very Newspeak, but when you (1) don't want to speak plainly and (2) re-engineer what people think, that's what one does. You don't speak plainly. You don't explain yourself clearly. You don't use reason or logic. You work on people's emotions. Fear, guilt, wanting to look good --- even love, charity, devotion to one's children, etc. can be twisted and manipulated relatively easily. You call love hate, and hate love. You say surrender is victory, slavery is freedom, freedom is terrorism. You say that "only [insert bad or scary adjective] people do [insert good, uplifting, or noble thing]."

Anyhow... as much as people complain about a "news blackout", they're assuming that the news mongers really have an interest in journalism as they portray themselves.

They're businesses run by people who are at times very open about their mission to "make a difference", i.e. change society. The business part is nothing but keeping people's eyeballs on their material so they can sell advertisements. This is not bad in and of itself, but people who think they're getting an "objective" product are deceived.

There is no news blackout. They're simply doing what they said they would. Publish stories to get eyes on their stuff (ad revenue), and to remake society in their own image ("make a difference").

When one looks at talk radio, the successful people (such as Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, or Rush Limbaugh) are very open about their biases and opinions like the newspapers of yesteryear. People tend to trust these sources more because they know what they're getting. People listen repeatedly because the content is first and foremost entertaining, which brings the ears for advertising revenue. Contrast this with the "mainstream media" which is openly biased but denies their biases. Their power has been eroding steadily, in part because of the eroding trust.

So, if you take biases into account, then the news makes more sense. (At least to me it does.)

For example, one will not hear about NAU, NAFTA, etc. from people who support statism because it's unpopular with the average American.

What possible reason would they have to talk about something unpopular that they agree with? It would stir up antagonism against that which they support. This to me is a reasonable explanation of why we don't see this stuff on statist media (AKA "mainstream media").

It also explains why it's not only talked about, it's torn apart by people like Michael Savage and Glenn Beck. They don't like it, and want to stir the hearts of Americans who don't."

Every one who claims to want Dr. Paul as President should just "be still and listen". Let him win the way he has always won. He knows history, he knows how DC works, he knows his opponents, he knows the political process. WE DON'T. I sometimes get anxious about this whole thing, but just think about all the Romney supporters who were so confident in him, and he suddenly drops out. Look at the Thompson and Guilliani supporters who were convinced their man could win. And out they go. And they HAD the media attention and "backing". If RP thought that he had zero chance, do you think he would ask us to spend $$ on his failed attempt. He is not that kiind of person, and you must believe that. Everyone here needs to exercise a little patience. Let's just watch and see what happens. I know that is so hard, not knowing the future, or where we stand. But really, we know where we stand. Not high in the polls. But HE KNOWS SOMETHING we don't.

My feelings exactly. The MSM will destroy all the other candidates.
Ron Paul will shine through come summer