Can we not get too carried away about Ben Swann and his apparent awesomeness? Brent himself said that Ben made a few factual 'errors'.
It was only a good interview relative to how the rest in the media treat Ron Paul.
If the mainstream media were to be fair and balanced, like we all wish they would be, then people would be picking holes in Swann's performance, not lauding him as some kind of saint.
Don't fall into the trap of becoming grateful for something that should be expected as standard practice.
Rupert Murdoch knows exactly what he's doing. There is no doubt that Murdoch does not want Dr Paul to be President, but he does want Ron Paul supporters to pay for his cable TV service. He publishes Michael Moore books, knowing that the relatively few liberals who actually read the books will be far outweighed by his vast empire of fascist pseudo-journalism. So at least he gets to cash in on the liberals too, making him look less biased in the process and making liberals look like the hypocrites they are.
News networks and the press always like to have someone who is a bit different, appearing to give them balance. CNN now have Piers Moron, a man who became a TV personality due to his 'heroic' opposition to the Iraq war, which he opposed because the tabloid he worked for at the time, The Mirror, traditionally sells newspapers by taking the opposite view of Murdoch's The Sun on any given issue. Until the Iraq war he wasn't so well known and had a reputation for being an arrogant and corrupt journalistic mercenary. But people now buy into his caricature of a man with a conscience, generating favorable reviews of his lackluster journalistic efforts.
I'm yet to see any strong evidence that Ben Swann is doing anything other than playing a role. Until then I'll keep an open mind.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are