BBC media blackout of Ron Paul.

Ok so i have been looking around on various news sites for articles about Ron Paul.

Let me explain why i was doing this. I have been getting more and more into the US elections and all i hear about online is Ron Paul and Hilary Clinton. So i started looking on various news sites for information on the candidates and to my surprise there doesn't seem to be even a whiff of RP on any mainstream media sites.

Now i might expect this in the US but what did side swipe me was he's not mentioned anywhere in the UK neither. I looked all around the BBC website for instance and they have a whole section of the website dedicated to the US elections.

news.bbc.co.uk...

And in this section you can have a look at poll results etc. Dennis Kucinich and RP are not even an option to look at.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Then i went to the section explaining about the candidates and where they stand on issues. And again Kucinich and RP not even an option to look at.



I looked all around the BBC website and eventually had to just use the search function which returned around 6 relevant results and the majority of this 6 results were all from comments left by the public.

search.bbc.co.uk...

Incredible that this is a continuing theme everywhere i try to look for RP. Whats that all about? And i think its a disgrace if im totally honest. I mean forget whether you would vote for him or not surely its plain for every to see that he is being blacked out by media even in the UK!

This has really peed me off and i think its time for people to make a stand and demand fair press for all the candidates. Now as an Englishman my contribution to this stance will have to come from the UK where my voice has a higher impact and i would urge everyone who feels the same way especially UK citizens to get onto Justin Webbs (BBC North America editor) blog and raise this issue until someone takes notice. (It worked with the 9/11 hitpiece they did).

You can find a blog of his discussing RP in a fair way i might add here:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Everyone with the inclination can post a comment on his blog, and i would ask why is there no coverage of RP or Dennis Kucinich on the BBC website?

www.bbc.co.uk...

Its a fair question and hopefully with enough support the BBC will have to answer. I would also suggest this done for American websites. Lets see if we cant tip the scales a little bit back into the equlibrium of fair press for all candidates.

The most likely reason that you have trouble finding much about Ron Paul on the BBC is the same reason that the American media has often neglected or even ignored him. He have been dismissed! The media in the U.S., and elsewhere, has all but written off Ron Paul.

What little attention that Ron Paul has received is primarily because of his use of the internet to reach a bloc of young, tech-savvy potential voters to raise funding for his campaign. Ironically enough, as an aside, this bloc of potential voters fall into a demographic that typically won't even show up at the polls to vote.

Because the media has already "written" Ron Paul off as an 'alternative candidate' with little to no chance of winning the presidency, he is viewed as mere curiosity. With television, radio and print space being at a premium, the media has simply chosen -- as a business and 'newsroom' decision -- to ignore him. Instead, they concentrate upon the candidates who are deemed as 'having a chance'!

I know, this is viewed as being patently unfair. It probably is. But, in the same breath, what choice do the news media, as business', really have? Should they cover every candidate who tosses his hat into the ring? Probably but they don't. If they did, you would have heard about some of the other presidential candidates and their campaigns.

For example, have you ever heard of Jedidiah Kennedy Banks? What about Daniel Barnett? NO? What about Dewey Broughman or Susan Ducey? Should the news media devote campaign coverage to Cap Fendig, David Furniss, Dan Gilbert, Mildred Howard and Dr. Mark Klein? Should the debates have included William Koenig, Alden Link, Stephen Macmillan, Yehenna Joan Mary Malone, James Mitchell, Jesus Muhammed, Launeil Sanders and Dr. Jack Shepard? If they did, it sure would have been a crowded stage. The debate would have taken hours (and a lot of chairs). And you know what? There would still have been complaints from the Presidential campaigns of Michael Charles Smith, Richard Michael Smith, Keith Sprankle, Corrogan Vaughn, Virgil Wiles and Vernon Wuensche! They are all Presidential candidates! And there are still more!

Here is, as far as I have been able to discover, a complete list of presidential hopefuls that you may not have heard about and that the media has "neglected" to tell you about

[edit on 1/12/2008 by benevolent tyrant]

Thank you for your well written and insightful post Benevolent Tyrant i guess it does stand to reason.

I was just shocked he is not THE front runner the way everyone goes on about him online. See i have only been following the elections from online sources so was shocked to find he's not mentioned anywhere in mainstream news media outlets.

I don't get how such massive support online doesn't translate through to the real life elections. It seems obvious that if his message was widely distributed through mainstream sources he probably would be a lot more popular.

Yet as of this moment its only the people who have been bothered to look online who have found out about this gem of a candidate. I know he's not perfect but he is definitely the lesser of two evils if you catch my drift.

Thats why i think people should be demanding their local press rooms and national newspapers to start covering RP.

Tom Tancredo , and Sam Brownback and Mark Huckabee are Republicans who are also missing from the list but I don't see anyone crying foul over there omission. Unlike US networks the BBC is a genuine world news network it reports what happens outside of the USA.

There is no reason why a station funded by the British tax payer would deliberately ignore Ron Paul .
A much more rational answer is that the BBC is covering the frontrunners and candidates that are news worthy. Outside of the US and the hoarders of Paul supporters online Paul simply isnt news worthy.

Sure it would be a differnt story if we were dealing with the likes of CNN but were not .

reply to post by xpert11


We actually pay TV licensing fees direct to the BBC. And the BBC has been more than a bit unscrupulous in the past.

Like the 9/11 hit piece they did where they edited out hours and hours worth of all the rational arguments from the truthers.

The point still is though any candidate who can raise as much money as RP did is worthy of mentioned don't you think?

I'm not necessarily leaning towards big conspiracy here, im just pointing out someone who gets so much attention online and fund raised the amount he did should be given the same air time.

RP seems to be one of the biggest names known over here in the UK because to follow the elections you have to do it online pretty much exclusively because of lack of press in UK at the moment.

We actually pay TV licensing fees direct to the BBC. And the BBC has been more than a bit unscrupulous in the past.

We use to have something similar to TV licensing fees but it was abolished because a lot of people didn't bother pay. Sure the BBC aren't a bunch of saints but they don't gain anything from ignoring Ron Paul on purpose.

The point still is though any candidate who can raise as much money as RP did is worthy of mentioned don't you think?

Well that all depends on the relative importance of other events that were covered by the BBC at the same time.

RP seems to be one of the biggest names known over here in the UK because to follow the elections you have to do it online pretty much exclusively because of lack of press in UK at the moment.

Well where I am I have heard no one mention Ron during any brief conversations about US politics . You and I will see greater coverage of US politics from our respective media outlets once the Primary's are almost over or when the two horse race begins for real.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Ironically enough, as an aside, this bloc of potential voters fall into a demographic that typically won't even show up at the polls to vote.

No they show up at the polls, have you seen the massive amount of Ron Paul supporters at the caucus and especially the even huger number of supporters in New Hamshire?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Instead, they concentrate upon the candidates who are deemed as 'having a chance'!

No, they make you concentrate who are deemed as being 'pro-war'.

The powers that be want a war, so they ignore all anti-war candidates.

And i'm sure they never will want this to happen again so i'm sure america will never allow another Ron Paul ever again.

Yet they still cover Giuliani, who, at the moment is losing against Ron Paul.
Rudy has been running for president since Sept. 2001.

Paul does have a problem with the diffusion of his message through traditional media. His name has been out of the limelight for 20 years.
There is a firewall between The internet, and TV.
He hasn't broken through very well.

Traditional media is NOT helping him. In fact, they sometimes create more work for themselves, just to keep his name dark.
Paul wins most, if not all online polls, text message polls, even party sponsored straw polls. He just won a Republican sponsored straw poll, in my state a couple of days ago, at 39 percent.


The other guys, They've run before, or have other immediate name recognition going for them.

The way television, and traditional media marginalizes him is sometimes overt, sometimes subtle.
They start off stories with phrases like:
"Long-shot candidate Ron Paul", "Even though he has no chance of winning, Ron Paul"
They were using this terminology WELL before a single vote had been cast.
Rarely were these terms used for other low tier candidates. Fishy
They use the word "kook" to describe the man.
I work under the umbrella of big corporate media, I hear it in the newsrooms.


Or, they just pretend he doesn't exist. Many TELEPHONE polls did not include him as a choice.

Then there are the smears.
These smear attempts are proof that he is a viable candidate.
You don't waste your time smearing a candidate that "can't win".
Smear tactics are usually aimed at Front-runners. Yet the day before the primaries, or Caucuses, those smear pieces came out in force.

I believe that his message, is making the Status-quo people nervous.
That includes, Dem's, Neo-cons (the other liberals), and established media.

And again, he's still ahead of Giuliani.

reply to post by spacedoubt


Thank you Spacedoubt that was exactly the kind of corroborating evidence i was looking to get on this thread. I just haven't been exposed or able to uncover this information fully myself yet due mainly to geographical location.

It just smells so fishy all round when someone who i thought would easily be a front runner because of the amount of info i know about him (which does say alot) seems to be completely ignored.

I'd love for the RP haters to explain away Spacedoubts comment. How can this be justified?

spacedoubt only mentioned half of what's going on with ron paul.

they simply want to not allow americans to consider anti-war candidates.
that's their agenda

the latest political debates have been very scary, with hosts pushing 'domestic nuclear attacks' topics and such

hosts were obviously pushing the topic and not because it was truth