I am somewhat confused when it comes to citing a source in the paper. I usually name the author in the sentence, so i have been only putting the page number where the article is found in the newspaper in the parenthesis. If someone could check my paper for mistakes and offer advice it would be appreciated.
Ron Paul Coverage
Bias in the news media is nothing new, especially when it comes to politics. News organizations have campaigned against candidates when said candidates do not meet their agenda. Conditioning the minds of an audience sometimes has a bigger influence on media ownership than profit. Newspapers, television news channels, and their corresponding internet websites are all guilty. Ron Paul is as far from a political puppet as you can get, which makes him a target in the 2008 presidential race. The key to Ron Paul's success in regard to media criticism has been his devotion to the constitution and the ideals of the founding fathers. When people attempt to portray him as a nut he can simply point to the constitution. Because of this, the media has to attack Ron Paul using various methods. The U.S media uses bias against Ron Paul by stereotyping his supporters, declaring him the loser from the start, and asking him loaded questions during the debates while limiting his talk time.
People usually accuse black people of playing the race card when they accuse someone of racism instead of debating facts. However, there is another type of "card" in existence, which I like to call the "culture card." Newspaper or television news often stereotype the kind of cultures or groups that back a candidate. The purpose of doing this is so that people will support the candidate that their culture supports. A popular example is the support from the evangelical Christians for George W. Bush. Media outlets that wanted him to win the election, like Fox News, often mentioned that he had the support of Christians and since this audience was so large, millions of Christians blindly voted for him without even questioning his relevance to Christianity. The current election has Hilary with the support of the feminist culture, and Obama has the support of the black community as well as non feminists democrats who want to feel like they're apart of another Martin Luther King movement.
Ron Paul is also stereotyped for having certain cultures as his followers. One article written by Aaron Sharockman a Times Staff Writer states that, "His base partly consists of - in no particular order - people who want prostitution legalized, taxpayers who oppose paying taxes, a white supremacist running for the Florida state House, and those who think the Sept. 11 attacks were a government conspiracy(Pg 1a)." All of the cultures that Aaron mentions are looked down upon by society. When people read this article, they are likely to reject Dr. Ron Paul because of his so-called support base, since they do not want to be associated with these groups. It is the same culturally driven media that advertisers use to get people to buy their product, except in reverse. Instead of associating a product, or person in this case, with popular cultures, the writer did just the opposite.
In response to a similar article accusing Ron Paul supporters of being the Motley Crew, Jerri Lynn Ward wrote a letter to the National post declaring that, "My Ron Paul meet-up group includes professionals, blue collar people, stay-at-home moms, conservative Christians and pro-life activists (like me), Ronald Reagan conservatives, libertarians, disaffected democrats, soccer moms and physicians. None of us consider Dr. Paul to be the "crazy uncle." Ron Paul speaks his mind and, moreover, educates his listeners on constitutional government and economics. The other candidates merely obfuscate(Pg. A17)." The difference between Aaron Sharockman and Jerri Lynn Ward is that Ward is a primary source for the main cultures involved with Ron Paul's campaign, while Sharockman is a biased writer who plays the culture card in an attempt to discredit the republican nominee. Jerri Lynn Ward is obviously biased for Ron Paul though, so for all we know there could be some unpopular cultures involved in her meet up group that she does not mention.
A third source on the issue list yet another different set of cultures in support of Ron Paul. Stephen Dinan wrote in the Washington Times, "They are crusty Iowa farmers enticed by doing away with the income tax, libertarian-minded college students in heavy-metal band T-shirts, antiwar Republicans looking for a champion, and folks worried about the Federal Reserve Board and paper money(A01)." This list may not include many mainstream groups, but they are certainly better than Sharockman's list. Dinan also list the reason that these groups support Paul; "For them, he's the man who can restore the Constitution, end the Iraq war, bring back the gold standard for money and stop an erosion of civil rights." On top of this, he actually interviews the people attending a rally. One attendee said, "'He's kind of no style and all substance. He wouldn't be in the game if he didn't really believe in what he's saying,' Jacob Lyles, a 24-year-old investment banker from Arlington said in a telephone interview. He said Mr. Paul's authenticity cuts through a lot of the political clutter to grab supporters. 'I think that's kind of the exact opposite of what his Republican opponents are saying.'" A more radical Ron Paul supporter stated ""I look at some of these people, and I say to myself, 'Yeah, it's weird' or whatever - I just think finally there may be a trend in this country where people are fed up with what they're hearing," he said. "There's no sheep here, there's wolves here, questioning our nation's government.""
Another tactic used against Paul is to start each article or interview with him by stating that it is impossible for him to win the election. Sharockman titled his article, "GOP HOPEFUL FLOATS ON DESPITE ODDS (Pg 1a)." Why does every Ron Paul article need to mention that his odds of winning are slim to none? They did not do this for John Kerry in the 2004 election when he was last in the polls. They also did not do it for any of the other 9 republican candidates that didn't last as long in the race as Paul has. Dinan, the reporter whose article is much more unbiased, titled his article more appropriately with, "Unlikely allies unite for Paul's Quixotic '08 bid(A01)." This title is actually relevant to the information presented in the article and does not start out by stating the odds Paul has of winning. George Stephanopoulos interviewed Ron Paul on ABC news and asked him, "What success for you in the campaign?," and Ron Paul responded by saying "What's success? Well, to win is one, is the goal," and Stephanopoulos angrily replied saying, "That's not going to happen(ABC News)." To say such a thing on national television is not only rude, but is as bias against a candidate as a reporter can get.
Foreign media tends to leave out any 'Ron Paul has no chance of winning' or 'Ron Paul supporters follow this culture' phrases. Suzanne Goldenberg wrote an article in The Guardian stating, "The anti-war Republican congressman from Texas has been ignored by the pundits and was not even invited to a Fox television debate in New Hampshire on Saturday ... The slight to Paul has not dissuaded 300 volunteers who have come for "Ron Paul's Christmas vacation in Iowa", spending days canvassing and evenings at youth camps - despite the temperature hitting -12C yesterday. Paul has the money to keep going after Iowa because of his success in internet fundraising(Pg. 21)." She revealed the censorship the American media is using against Ron Paul and how his grass root movement is raising money over the internet to keep him in the race. Denis Staunton of The Irish Times recognized the bias against Ron Paul by writing, "Dismissed by Republican rivals as a libertarian crank and scarcely registering in opinion polls, presidential candidate Ron Paul has stunned the political scene by raising more than $4 million in a single day. The Texas congressman, who opposes the Iraq war, wants to end the US alliance with Israel and favours the abolition of income tax, took in $4.2 million in internet donations during a Guy Fawkes Day fundraising drive. Mr Paul raised more than $5 million between July and September, almost as much as former Republican frontrunner John McCain and five times as much as former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, whose campaign is taken much more seriously by most commentators(Pg. 11)."
Ivor Tossel of the The Globe and Mail, which is a Canadian newspaper wrote, "As one of the 6.3 billion citizens of the Earth who will not be voting in the American presidential election but will nonetheless be stuck with the results, my interest was piqued by a website called "Who Would the World Elect?" The site asks visitors from around the world to choose one of the smiling mugs of the 17 presidential contenders - eight Democrats, nine Republicans. With about 80,000 votes tallied so far, we can declare an early winner, since [Ron Paul] alone has snapped up more than half of them, dominating the regional standings from Gibraltar to Uruguay, Cambodia to Canada(Pg. R23)." The problem with this poll is that it was an online poll and Ron Paul has a very strong support base online. However, it is interesting to note that it's not only in America where Ron Paul has support groups that vote in these online polls. He has support groups all around the world. The Economist magazine published an article titled "Paul the apostate," stating, "Is this would-be president brave or crazy? Republican congressman from Texas, likes to say what he thinks. And among the things he thinks is that the census is a violation of privacy. He has opted out of the congressional pension programme. He claims never to have voted for a tax increase, or for an unbalanced budget, or for a congressional pay rise and never to have gone on a congressional junket. He wants to return to the gold standard. Most notably, he strongly opposes the Iraq war and has from the beginning." They foreign countries seem to be more positive about Ron Paul's campaign than the U.S Media. I found it shocking though, that a magazine called the Economist did not dig deeper into his economic policies, which are the foundation of his campaign. That was very disappointing for me.
The televised republican presidential debates are stacked against Ron Paul. The questions he is asked are typically rude and hand picked in an attempted to prevent Ron Paul from gaining supporters. During the South Carolina GOP debate the host Carl Cameron gave this question, "Congressman Paul, yet another question about electability. Do you have any, sir(Decker Pg. 10)?" Paul's response was so good that the loaded question backfired and when Fox re-aired the debate it was cut from the broadcast. Fox even went as far as to exclude Ron Paul from the January 6th fox forum. After they realized that this backfired due to public out cry, they allowed him back into the debates, but limited his time to 6 minutes while candidates like Mit Romney had an hour of air time. During the Ronald Reagan library debate Anderson Cooper had all of the candidates debate the differences between conservatives versus liberal, except for Ron Paul. Ron Paul even insisted on answering the question when he was asked a different question, but Anderson Cooper lied to him by promising that he would have time to answer it later, which he never did. This question would have been beneficial for Paul to answer because he would have been able to make a distinction between conservatives, and neo conservatives and how new conservatives are more like democrats. That is the reason he was not allowed to respond to the questions.
After a debate is finished, Fox News brings out Frank Luntz, and has his focus group to discuss the debate. This focus group is supposedly made up twenty randomly selected independent voters. However, Luntz has been caught using planted actors who are famous for propaganda. He even used the same actor for two different debates, which has become an infamous video on youtube. Fox news usually has a text vote poll, so people can text in who they think won the debate. Ron Paul won every single text poll for all of the debates. After the South Carolina debate Shaun Hannity was doing a post debate interview with Ron Paul and stated that the polls are rigged and that Ron Paul did not win the debate. Paul asked him why he thinks his own poll is no good and said he liked the voting audience. Then they went to Franks so called focus group, and Frank asked the focus group "who disappointed you the most of all of [the candidates]?" They all shouted "Ron Paul." He then asked, "How many of you have said Ron Paul was the loser tonight?" and they all raised their hands. Lunts then followed up by saying "There you go, Sean. You have a got a winner-Fred Thompson; loser-Ron Paul." This is obviously a propaganda tool used by Fox news to condition the minds of their audience. After a debate people are still soaking in all that they heard and while they are making up their minds Fox brings out this group of people who tell you what you should think about the debate.
While most candidates get financial backing from lobbyist who contribute cash for political power, Ron Paul has received all of his money from average American citizens. Ron Paul has received more cash donations from the military than any other candidate has by a landslide. Thomas Hoffman of computerworld wrote, ""The Texas Congressman's online fundraising efforts are as unconventional as his use of media. Unlike other presidential wannabes, who rely on e-mail blasts to would-be supporters, Paul has been building his war chest by allowing his backers to drive much of the campaign themselves." Sadly, as Frank Luntz always says, it's not what you say, it's what people hear. Ron Paul preaches the constitution, but what the majority of Americans hear on television is that Ron Paul is a crank. Although Ron Paul has lost the election, he has won over the minds of millions of Americans and the revolution that his supporters created will spill over into future elections.
Works Cited
Decker, Cathleen, and Reston, Maeve. "The Nation; Debaters aim answers at next states; Facing off in South Carolina, Replubican hopefuls vie for key voters - and for Reagan's mantle." Los Angeles Times.
Dinan, Stephen. "Unlikely allies unite for Paul's quixotic '08 bid." The Washington Times. 19 November 2007, PAGE ONE; A01. LexisNexis.
"FOX HANNITY & CO 9:35 PM EST." Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, and Frank Luntz. Fox News. LexisNexis.
Goldberg, Suzanne. "United States: Iowa is end of the road for some candidates in a busy race." The Guardian(London). 2 January 2008, GUARDIAN INTERNATIONAL PAGES; Pg. 21. LexisNexis.
Hoffman, Thomas. "The Geekiest Candidate." Computerworld.
"ON THE TRAIL; RON PAUL." George Stephanopoulos. ABC News.
"Paul the apostate." The Economist. 21 July 2007. LexisNexis.
Sharockman, Aaron. "GOP HOPEFUL FLOATS ON DESPITE ODDS." ST. Petersburg Times. 15 October 2007, NATIONAL; Pg 1a. LexisNexis.
Staunton, Denis. "$4m raised in one day by 'crank' candidate." The Irish Times. 7 November 2007, WORLD; Other World Stories; Pg. 11. LexisNexis.
Tossel, Ivor "Ron Paul, your virtual president." The Globe and Mail. 7 December 2007, THE GLOBE REVIEW 7; New Media: WEB: U.S. POLITICS: ONLINE CAMPAIGNING; Pg. R23. LexisNexis.
Ward, Jerri. " Ron Paul is not the 'crazy uncle'." National Post. 19 October 2007, LETTERS; Pg. A17. LexisNexis. U of Wisconsin-Whitewater, University Lib.
