The audacity of it! The pigheadedness of it! The outrageous bias of it! One commenter on the YouTube page disagrees, writing:
"this video was taken out of context... they are obviously talking about how ron paul is CLEARLY a big runner in the race.. and him being number 2 wouldnt be a surpirse... not a guy like huntsman.. who is not a big runner... dont be bias with these videos... dont stoop down to foxs level... i would like to see this video taken down..."
But the commenter is missing the point. It was quite obvious to me that the Fox News reporter is saying what the commentator claims he is saying, but the reporter is wrong. Just because we expect Ron Paul to take second according to the poll numbers, that does not mean that it is "not news" when it happens. There's a difference between polls and actual election results, one of those many differences being that actual election results have actual electoral consequences.
The only way this is "not news" is if Fox News wants to admit that the full scope and furthest extent of its "news" reporting is horse-race-style news: "Oh boy, we expected this guy to win, but that guy did instead! Oh wow!" Flame me if I'm wrong, but I thought real journalism is something that digs just a little bit deeper than that. Let me ask you if this is news:
After constantly being ignored by the media, denigrated as a "long-shot" candidate with no chances of winning, smeared and slandered with all kinds of lies and propaganda misdirection, and never taken seriously, a candidate who represents major reform and collects mostly small donations from grassroots supporters (many of them Armed Services members) takes a solid second place lead over the third place candidate in the nation's first primary. Is that news?
We're all expecting Mitt Romney to take first according to the polls in New Hampshire, but do you think that won't be treated as news by the media, or do you think that his name will dominate all the headlines after he wins? Oh, you think it'll be that second one? Congratulations, you're not stupid.
See in the case of Mitt Romney, Fox News will recognize that there is a broader context and other considerations than the mere question of how we were expecting Mitt to do based on the numbers and how he actually does. In Ron Paul's case, this Fox News reporter doesn't use the same reasoning that the rest of his network will use for Romney. No, Ron Paul is different somehow. If he takes second place in New Hampshire, that's not news.
So what's the difference between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul? Is this Fox News reporter being fair and balanced? Hell no, he isn't. And about that other question: the difference between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul is if we elect Mitt Romney, absolutely nothing is going to change, and if we elect Ron Paul, America will start to heal from the deep wounds of Washington's bloated, wasteful, corrupt, malfeasant socialism and become a great nation once again!
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page