The R[ƎVO˩]UTION Will Not Be Televised: MSM Ignores Ron Paul in Iowa

COMMENTARY – ProspectingJournal.com – A funny thing happened in Iowa this weekend. While the mainstream networks did their best to sweep the results under the rug, the AMES Iowa Straw Poll for the leadership of the Republican Party gave a warning shot that a revolution could be on the rise. And while the headlines that ensued focused primarily on the win by Michele Bachmann, the loss by Tim Pawlenty and the entry of Texas Governor Rick Perry into the race, the media almost uniformly omitted the fact that with only 152 votes less than Bachmann, fellow Tea Party favourite, Dr. Ron Paul, came in a very respectable second place, only 152 votes behind Bachmann and with more votes than the 2007 winner, Mitt Romney’s total.

Ron Paul has been on the Prospecting Journal’s radar for quite some time, with his challenges against the Fed, and his investment strategy that is in line with ours, pertaining to faith in the mining industry and precious bullion. Today, the story is in the lack of a story. We find the strategic ignoring of Paul’s successes to be disturbing and alarming.

How can it be that the entire mainstream media can downplay this growing Campaign for Liberty and still maintain some form of credibility? What portion of his message is so frightening that they must hide him from your site so fervently? Examples of guilt by omission:

• Politico
• Cleveland.com
• WashingtonPost
• Salon.com, 2
• CBS News
• Des Moines Register
• MSNBC (where they even bold every candidate’s name except RP).

Sometimes they come out and admit the fact that they are to blame for Ron Paul’s lack of coverage. Ron Paul’s message may be outside the norm, but contrarians have come along in the past and won despite the seemingly insurmountable odds against them. But here we are, four years after the last time Dr. Paul attempted to win over the GOP in Iowa at the same poll, and his results have grown astronomically.

The Myth of Unelectability

It’s quite strange that the media can dismiss Ron Paul as unelectable, while allowing others with far loonier beliefs and backgrounds to skate by without the same scrutiny. Had Ron Paul won the straw poll instead of Michele Bachmann, the media would’ve certainly downplayed its significance, like they did with his straw poll win at CPAC in 2011 (where he was greeted with cheers) and in 2010 (where he was greeted with boos). Instead, he finished second, and helped knock out Tim Pawlenty along the way. In the aftermath, here’s how the media handled it. First off, when a “Ron Paul! Ron Paul!” chant interrupted their broadcast, they cut away to the thinnest portion of his supporters in the stands instead of showing the thicker group on the arena floor which would’ve showed a different view.

So in 2008, Obama gained a lot of support from independents and students based on his perceived anti-war stance. Here we have Ron Paul who is actually anti-war, and has always been so. With the economy crumbling fast, he’s the only one speaking about it in reasonable terms with an uncanny ability to predict and give realistic projections. How can this be unelectable? Who do the mainstream media think they are?

Let’s look at his competition, and try to figure out what should and shouldn’t be unelectable. 

CLICK TO CONTINUE READING ARTICLE