Ron Paul supporters sound off on Christian Science Monitor coverage

Ron Paul has passionate fans, who are vociferous about the media's treatment of the 'most-ignored' Republican presidential candidate. The Christian Science Monitor got some points for writing about Dr. Paul, but the essay about his eyebrow? That didn't fly.

By

  • close
    Why is this man smiling? Perhaps because he, the outspoken Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas, has the most engaged and vocal following of any of the Republican presidential candidates, despite consistently trailing Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney in the polls.
    View Caption

Ron Paul supporters are a vociferous lot, leaping to the defense and promotion of their favored Republican presidential candidate anywhere their search engines take them. The Christian Science Monitor’s comment forums are no exception, be they on the website itself or on the CSM’s Politics Facebook page.

Peter Grier’s article, “Ron Paul: Are the media still ignoring him?” was like waving a red flag in front a bull, provoking a stampede of comments. Unsurprisingly, most commenters agreed with the headline, lumping the Monitor in with what they call a mainstream media blackout, despite the fact that we were, in fact, providing coverage of Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas right then and there – and recently hosted a Monitor Breakfast that featured none other than Dr. Paul.

Nevertheless, Eric Bahr remarked, “CS is an excellent example of corporate filtered, ulterior motive driven propaganda.” Ouch.

Recommended: Could you pass a US citizenship test?

"Snarky Richard" pointed out, “If an article comes out asking if Ron Paul is being ignored by the media it pretty much proves that he is being ignored by the media.” Touché.

People cited chapter and verse of slights against Paul. Gena Cornett noted, “In one debate, all of the candidates except Ron Paul were given questions on the Fed – and that’s been one of his key issues for years!” John Zwengel wrote, “Yes, I think he’s being ignored. Not just less covered, but intentionally ignored." And Austin Lazanowski said, “I still meet people every day who do NOT know who he is, and mostly because they listen to mainstream news who only blurb 2 seconds worth of material every month on him.”

Richard Simpson had an idea about why this might be so: “On days when the Paul campaign does something newsworthy, the aggregate results Google displays almost always keep him out of the top stories and off the front page.”

We sympathize. The algorithmic choices of Google are something that bedevil the most seasoned web publishers.

Edward Hobart Tonkin offered other reasons for the snubbing of Paul: “…he does not look good in any formal clothes, and his mind moves so fast that he looks like an upset rooster at times.” Richard Tucker gave a more Paulian party-line rationale: “Ron Paul works for the people, all of the others are working for the globalists. Main stream media is owned and controlled by the globalists. They are nothing more than propaganda outlets, that is why the Ron Paul support comes from other sources, outside of the lamestream media."

“Of all GOP candidates, Paul gets the most positive coverage on blogs,” Mr. Grier noted in the article. This statement rankled.

“That you would deny the existence of the blackout by pointing out Ron Paul's raging popularity online is beyond comical,” wrote Dusk2dawn. “No sir, that is not the rebuttal of the argument of blackout. It is the very proof.”

yahoo-NMMNXYJWASJ2A5USXHGHKXS3TM added,“If blogs, google searches, and fundraising equated to voting Power Ron Paul would be president right now.”

Voices of dissent were shot down. Gordon Pitts stated, “People realize that Ron Paul is a gadfly. Fun to listen to and provocative at times, but not a serious candidate.” Blake Shatto countered, “Paul is a gadfly and not a serious contender? lol... His critiques are based on constitutionality and he has never flipped flopped in over 30 years.”

There were some words of praise for the Monitor's Paul coverage. Anthony Martin wrote, “The CS Monitor really has been quite fair to Paul, air-time wise. Which I commend them for. Many news outlets have taken the MTV approach: scandal and slander and defamation is newsworthy, and not substance. Which is why I subscribe to CS Monitor, because the journalists on their writing staff seem to contend that substance is, in fact, quite newsworthy.”

Bill Milligan was more circumspect: “It seems that the majority of Ron Paul articles in the media come from csmonitor, and I have to hand it to you guys for stepping up and actually reporting on him…That said, the fact that the previous csm article on Ron Paul devoted the majority of its focus on his eyebrow rather than his eleven-page plan tempers my enthusiasm."

Finally, Chadj had this to say: “I'm consistently amazed at how every article that mentions Ron Paul is followed up by commentary by his supporters which is much more intelligent and insightful than any of the actual articles.”

And now, the Ron Paul media mavens have spoken again.


Share this story:

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...