Jon Stewart Exposes Mainstream Media Bias Against Ron Paul

Even when the media does remember Ron Paul, it's only to reassure themselves that there's no need to remember Ron Paul.
Enzobluesays...

Same thing last election. Paul beat McCain in Arizona, but so narrowly that CNN felt it ok to put them alphabetically in order on their website - Time mentioned him like once during the entire Primary cycle. Just bizarre how openly they're dismissing him. It's like openly admitting their corruption.

Grimmsays...

The media plays a big roll in who the average Joe pays attention to. Most people just don't want to bother at this point when there are so many people in the running so they take a wait and see approach. Whoever is still around and getting the most news coverage is usually who they get behind.

Back in 2007 Ron Paul raised $4.2 million in 24 hours without the help of the media. Before Obama had been ordained by the media as the front runner his supporters tried to duplicate what Ron Paul accomplished. They raised $4,650 from 72 people.

Yogisays...

>> ^garmachi:

Ron Paul is dangerous. But in a good way.


This is what I like about him...he has some great policies that the american people respond SOO well two on both sides of the aisle. I'm tempted to vote for him JUST BECAUSE he's against our Wars, even though I know if he gets elected the Insurance rates skyrocket and Capitalism crushes us completely.

blankfistsays...

@dystopianfuturetoday, are these news outlets also part of the big corporations you claim "inform my politics"? Looks like the corporations don't much care for Libertarianism even when mixed with a folksy dose of Conservatism. They do love them some status quo like Romney, Bachmann and, oh yeah, even Obama gets his day in the sun.

In case you're foggy what I mean, let me cite that for you.

marblessays...

Corporate Media Admit They Censor Candidates Who Challenge the Status Quo:
Preface: Liberals shouldn't ignore the media's censoring of Ron Paul's popularity in straw polls because he's "on the right". Many progressive candidates have been shut out of political races by the big corporate media.

Reuters Edits Iowa Poll Reality According to Globalist Agenda:
Often cited as a reliable, reputable news source, Reuters is in actuality nothing more than another den of duplicity bought and paid for by the corporate financiers ruling/ruining Western civilization. Their latest article titled, "Bachmann and Perry - a beautiful 2012 rivalry" sidelines reality according to the globalist script so soundly you can almost hear the noses of Reuters editors' growing. The GOP Iowa debate saw Ron Paul annihilate the competition with counts showing him as far as three times further ahead of the next runner-up Newt Gingrich. However, the final tally of the Iowa straw poll saw establishment footstool Michele Bachmann eke out Ron Paul by a mere 152 votes. Despite the closeness of the race and the immense political ramifications of a candidate labeled by the corporate media as part of "fringe politics" finishing neck-to-neck with the insincere Bachmann, Reuters decided to write about Rick Perry's insignificant, meaningless, though establishment approved, entry into the GOP 2012 race instead. Not a single mention of Ron Paul was made.

Lawdeedawjokingly says...

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Sorry, isadupe of blankfist... @blankfisthttp://videosift.com/video/TDS-Indecision-2012-Ron-Paul-the-Top-Tier

Actually mine is the dupe, not this one. I was waiting for lucky or dag to respond to my Sift Talk post, but feel free to dupe mine at any time.


Can't until gold star...Anyways, I am dumb yet again... thanks...for pointing it out. Dear god is my attention span that of a gnat? But at least there is editing...haha, what do you mean blankfist? See my original edited comment that is meant to make you look silly?

Maurusays...

The problem with Ron Paul running as a presidential candidate would be that his ideologies are so radically different (not all good mind you) from the current political perspective in the US it would take a very well educated public to win the "undecided" voter.
i.e.: voters who actually vote on ideologies, campaign goals and what we would generally call reason instead of partisanship and cultural background.

The Republicans and mainstream media are well aware of that fact and while they secretly like RP to run as senator or basically any other position (even though they can't openly admit it) because he breaks traditional voting habits they would never boost him as a presidential candidate.

Sad but true. That's why there's all the smirking when he speaks. It's not because they fundamentally oppose his principles but because they believe that the level of debate R.P. as a candidate would require to succeed is unachievable (or perhaps undesirable) at America's cultural level

siftbotsays...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jon stewart, ron paul, tds, news media, corn polled' to 'jon stewart, ron paul, tds, news media, corn polled, 13th floor' - edited by ponceleon

Lawdeedawsays...

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^garmachi:
Ron Paul is dangerous. But in a good way.

This is what I like about him...he has some great policies that the american people respond SOO well two on both sides of the aisle. I'm tempted to vote for him JUST BECAUSE he's against our Wars, even though I know if he gets elected the Insurance rates skyrocket and Capitalism crushes us completely.


Do it, and regret it later

Lawdeedawsays...

You call it the "problem" but isn't it the solution?

>> ^Mauru:

The problem with Ron Paul running as a presidential candidate would be that his ideologies are so radically different (not all good mind you) from the current political perspective in the US it would take a very well educated public to win the "undecided" voter.
i.e.: voters who actually vote on ideologies, campaign goals and what we would generally call reason instead of partisanship and cultural background.
The Republicans and mainstream media are well aware of that fact and while they secretly like RP to run as senator or basically any other position (even though they can't openly admit it) because he breaks traditional voting habits they would never boost him as a presidential candidate.
Sad but true. That's why there's all the smirking when he speaks. It's not because they fundamentally oppose his principles but because they believe that the level of debate R.P. as a candidate would require to succeed is unachievable (or perhaps undesirable) at America's cultural level

Drachen_Jagersays...

Who cares about Ron Paul? He's just another crazy in a race full of them. His views make as much sense as Bachman's or Perry's, he's just more articulate and less of a 'mainstream' Republican.

steroidgsays...

*gets excited about watching the current No 1 ranking sift*

*clicks on the big arrow to play*

"Sorry, this video is unavailable form your location"

...

*puts mouse down calmly, closes eyes and takes a deep breath*

.........

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU......

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More