NJ.com
Paul Mushine
It's been obvious for almost a year now that the New York Times was participating in the media conspiracy to kill Ron Paul's candidacy by pretending it didn't exist.
Nice to see them admit it.
In Sunday's Times, public editor Arthur S. Brisbane wrote of the decision to deep-six the only candidate in the race who has anything interesting to say.
Here's what Brisbane wrote:
Brisbane is showing admirable candor here. Reporters do indeed have to find a way to frame a story to make it interesting to the audience.
But he's wrong about Ron Paul. There was a "coherent narrative" to his race from the very beginning. Ron Paul consistently ran in the top four in the polls. He had a ground game and fund-raising operation second only to Mitt Romney. Not only that, but polls showed he was the only candidate other than Romney who was close to Barack Obama in head-to-head polls.
It was obvious from the beginning that Paul was going be a factor in the race. In the summer, when he finished in a statistical dead heat at the top of the Iowa straw poll, it became obvious tha Paul was going to do well in the Iowa caucuses as well, since they are just a glorified version of the straw poll. Yet the Times joined with other papers in ignoring his finish and trumpeting Michele Bachmann.
As with Sarah Palin, the members of the media love to play up the role of attractive but not-so-bright women in the Republican Party. It makes Republicans look like a bunch of rubes. Alas, Bachmann was not as popular with the voters as she was with reporters looking for a way to caricature the GOP.
As for Santorum, Brisbane makes a mistake in lumping him in with Paul. Santorum lingered near the bottom of early polls and it truly was a surprise when he rose in Iowa. Paul's showing there and in New Hampshire was entirely predictable; Santorum's wasn't.
And Santorum said nothing in the debates that made him stand out. He never departed from the party line of promising both budget cuts and a bigger military.
Paul Mushine
 |
| Ron Paul campaigns outside the Statehouse in Trenton with state Senator Michael J. Doherty |
Nice to see them admit it.
In Sunday's Times, public editor Arthur S. Brisbane wrote of the decision to deep-six the only candidate in the race who has anything interesting to say.
Here's what Brisbane wrote:
In a Dec. 4 column, I wrote about journalists’ reflex to impose their own narrative on a race, a dynamic that can eclipse what candidates are actually saying. Well, as last week’s Iowa caucuses demonstrated, the Republican nomination contest steadfastly resists any coherent narrative.
Early in the campaign, The Times decided to remain low key in its coverage of Ron Paul, the libertarian Texas congressman, and Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator. Their strong showings on Tuesday, following the serial derailments of other contenders, showed just how hard it is for the paper to read the plotline of this contest.
Brisbane is showing admirable candor here. Reporters do indeed have to find a way to frame a story to make it interesting to the audience.
But he's wrong about Ron Paul. There was a "coherent narrative" to his race from the very beginning. Ron Paul consistently ran in the top four in the polls. He had a ground game and fund-raising operation second only to Mitt Romney. Not only that, but polls showed he was the only candidate other than Romney who was close to Barack Obama in head-to-head polls.
It was obvious from the beginning that Paul was going be a factor in the race. In the summer, when he finished in a statistical dead heat at the top of the Iowa straw poll, it became obvious tha Paul was going to do well in the Iowa caucuses as well, since they are just a glorified version of the straw poll. Yet the Times joined with other papers in ignoring his finish and trumpeting Michele Bachmann.
As with Sarah Palin, the members of the media love to play up the role of attractive but not-so-bright women in the Republican Party. It makes Republicans look like a bunch of rubes. Alas, Bachmann was not as popular with the voters as she was with reporters looking for a way to caricature the GOP.
As for Santorum, Brisbane makes a mistake in lumping him in with Paul. Santorum lingered near the bottom of early polls and it truly was a surprise when he rose in Iowa. Paul's showing there and in New Hampshire was entirely predictable; Santorum's wasn't.
And Santorum said nothing in the debates that made him stand out. He never departed from the party line of promising both budget cuts and a bigger military.
Posts
