Why the Media Hates Ron Paul

They didn't want you listening in the first place...and now they don't want you taking him seriously. If you do, the terrorists win and Barack will most certainly be re-elected. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, they tell us. Because fear is the media's bread and butter, and warmongering is great for their revenue.

Ever since the Spanish-American war, the media has been the primary enabling catalyst to the social impact of violent extremism. Nobody would tune in if they weren't freaked out, nor would they submit to body scanners and strip searches if they weren't afraid of being blown up.

Ron Paul threatens to tone down the hysteria on which both government contractors--like the TSA--and conglomerate entertainers--like cable newscasters--flourish.

The term "entertainer" is used lightly here, as demagogues like Rachel Maddow and Glenn Beck are only slightly less informative than they are amusing--which to thinking and educated viewers, they are neither. The business model behind their spin-control depends on the suppression of intelligent ideas to preserve the ignorance of their fan base, whom Ron Paul might possibly educate.

That's why they don't want him on their shows. Because they don't want you to think--you're not smart enough for that--they just want you to tune in to adopt pre-crafted conclusions based on party loyalty so they can keep getting easy ratings and pay raises.

As dissentarian George Carlin pointed out in the aftermath of the first Persian Gulf Conflict, "It was the first war on cable...the media was basically and unpaid employee of the Department of Defense."

Arguable or not, Carlin's point is impossible to dismiss in the age of embedded war correspondents, where only Al Jazeera has the ability to even tell us what our service people might be doing wrong around the world.

Ron Paul threatens to end U.S. participation in irrelevant international conflict, which could be the death of American interest in PR-based war reporting. That would compromise the mainstream's auctioneering of spotlight time to imperialist candidacies, as well as its lobbying potential and debate control through exposure-based agenda setting.

The consensus among this generation's sad excuse for journalists appears to be that anything Big Brother does in the name of catching bad guys is A-OK. Televised media has unilaterally failed to warn the American people about civil rights violations, the perils of which Paul's campaign has made a mantra.

The reporters themselves--on Fox, CNN, MSNBC and the like--are the ones who should have been most outraged at the illegal detainment powers made possible under the original oxymoronic "P.A.T.R.I.O.T." act, as well as the recently passed N.D.A.A.

Finally, the nature of Ron Paul's popularity--having risen to fame and financial significance solely by Email and YouTube--is a threat not only to the establishment's endorsement significance, but also its advertising dollar. They are the ones who keep us so terrified of Al-Qaeda that we are willing to talk to our doctors about Abilify™.

Pfizer doesn't rake in "free trial" patients when we read Wikipedia and watch YouTube, and Rush Limbaugh doesn't get kickbacks to help keep pot illegal when we listen to Ron Paul instead of a loyalist disc jockey fueling the state of class-envy with his hypocritical support for the war on drugs.

The last national advertising holiday we had in this country was ten years ago, and ten days after the first of September. It began that morning and lasted several weeks, not counting the lingering candlelit fundraisers.

9/11 was the agenda-setting event of the century for both the news department and the advertising desk at your local American broadcasting affiliate. Ron Paul's presidency could be the one to finally make that day--and everything that caused it--a thing of the past...and that's why they don't want you voting for him.