Jon Stewart on the Media and Ron Paul

Tuesday, August 16th, 2011

This is beautiful. The clip at the end is particularly telling.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

57 Responses to “Jon Stewart on the Media and Ron Paul”

  1. #1 |  twency | 

    Was going to watch it, but then the ad started. I’m not willing to spend 30 seconds of my time making money, however miniscule, for Jon Stewart.

  2. #2 |  Stephen | 

    Trust me, it is worth it.

  3. #3 |  Henry Bowman | 

    That was great, Radley. Thanks for posting it.

  4. #4 |  StrongStyle81 | 

    I don’t think I have ever seen the mainstream media try so hard to pretend that someone exists. It just shows just how dangerous his ideas are to the establishment of this country, particularly his anti-war views. The response that he received showed that the people of this country are sick of the endless wars and politics.

  5. #5 |  StrongStyle81 | 

    That first line should read “that someone doesn’t exist”

    That’s what happens when you rage type.

  6. #6 |  TomG | 

    #1 – You know, you don’t have to agree with someone ALL the time to appreciate it when they do something right, or funny.

    And ever since tabs became standard on most browsers, I find it a LOT easier to ignore ads I don’t want to see. I just tab to a different article for half a minute and then….return!

  7. #7 |  Stephen | 

    The MSM certainly ignored Gary Johnson into oblivion.

  8. #8 |  TomG | 

    #7 – Yeah, that infuriates me. Honestly, given a choice between Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, I wish the media would focus on Johnson. But both will continue to get ignored. Heck, I don’t think even Michael Steele has mentioned either one of them on MSNBC yet, and he’s a frequent guest on the evening shows (Mathews, ODonnell) there.

  9. #9 |  Mister DNA | 

    Maybe it’s too early to address this, but I’m surprised I haven’t seen it brought up…

    If, by some miracle, Ron Paul were to get the Republican nomination, it’s almost certain that the neo-cons would run a 3rd Party candidate.

    Conversely, should Ron Paul run as a 3rd Party candidate?

    Either way, such a scenario would virtually guarantee another Obama term.

    I don’t know how I feel about this. I want to see the neo-cons kicked to the curb just as much as I want to see Obama as a one-term wonder.

  10. #10 |  Juice | 

    Since Ron isn’t running for Congress again, this is his last hurrah.

    He should really pull out all the stops. Keep going to the Republican debates and trouncing the airheads. Then, when the primaries start ramping up, go crazy with the media blitz.

    Then, break out and run as an independent.

  11. #11 |  Stephen | 

    The “neo-cons” are not so “neo” any more. They have been around long enough to become just “cons” because all the old real “con” have died off. Now it is more of what Jerry Pournelle calls “country club republicans”.

    The closest thing we have to some kind of “new” republican is the tea party types and they are all over the place when it comes to policy sort of like libertarians are.

    I do like this Ron Paul ad. :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY

  12. #12 |  Mister DNA | 

    The closest thing we have to some kind of “new” republican is the tea party types and they are all over the place when it comes to policy sort of like libertarians are.

    The Tea Party’s biggest strength is also its biggest liability. By being decentralized, there’s no consistent platform. In fact, The Tea Party is pretty much a misnomer. Locally, our Tea Party are basically your run-the-mill conservatives… just as much socially as fiscally.

  13. #13 |  fldoubleu | 

    The media chooses the candidates, not the public.

    I think it was Ann Coulter who said (paraphrased) that the republicans always have a way of snatching defeat out of the hands of victory. Coulter has said she thinks Ron Paul is right on domestic issues, but disagrees with him on foreign policies.

  14. #14 |  Nick T. | 

    Ron Paul is the only “candidate” that will appear on any ballot related to President who is credibly antiwar. With this his last run, ther’es a good chance this fact will also apply to the candidates running in 2016.

    Would be great if the media would cover war issues and anti-war candidates.

    I don’t get it. Seems like it used to be that the media would entertain serious debates about war in the past, even if they came out, invariably, pro-war in the end. I know the media likes war, but still, why the total blackout on Paul?

  15. #15 |  Mattocracy | 

    I think this also goes to show how self defeating the GOP can be. The Ron Paul base is organized and energized. But the GOP ignores this potential voting base instead of trying to embrace it.

  16. #16 |  Kid Handsome | 

    Republicans don’t want Paul because he’d make them actually practice what they preach. It’s amazing what gets considered radical in politics these days. Paul’s most “controversial” positions just don’t seem that crazy to me.

    I am wondering, if he gets a push, whether a lot of libertarian sites will give him the same treatment as he got in the last election where there was initial excitement but all the sudden (at least in my recollection) there were strange allegations of racism regarding a newsletter published long ago and the excitement just died. Am I remembering correctly?

  17. #17 |  JS | 

    To me this not even trying to disguise it attempt to ignore Ron Paul seems like the most serious thing in journalism in the history of America. Is there any sort of historical precedent for it? I mean, yea reporters and whole newsrooms have always had biases but this isn’t even trying to pretend that they’re doing objective journalism this is just blatent and open contempt for the only one who represents something besides the status quo. But this totally compromises journalism in a way I’m not has ever been done before? Am I wrong in taking it so seriously?

  18. #18 |  TomG | 

    Kid Handsome – Indeed you do, but it wasn’t just the racism. While many libertarians love Ron Paul (especially Lew Rockwell), some others regard him as less of a libertarian and more of a constitutionalist, states-rights sort of guy. I’ve read quite a few discussions by libertarians about his positions and whether they really are libertarian, and I personally think they have a point.

    The allegations of racism turned out to be pretty solid and articles appeared over many issues, not just here and there. Either he approved, or just didn’t pay attention to, many offensive things published in a newsletter with his name on it. People have tried to defend him about it, but have not done so convincingly (in my opinion). While I still admire his consistency, I think he has too many liabilities at this point to be an electable candidate.

  19. #19 |  John | 

    The media only seems interested in candidates that fit their idea of what a Republican should be, a hawkish social conservative who only raises fiscal concerns when there is a Democrat in power. Hence the obsession with Sarah Palin. When someone like Paul comes along, they have to admit that they don’t really understand why voters don’t simply adhere to the Red vs Blue story they’ve been telling for years. They’re forced to admit that they don’t control who rises to power, and that an organization they’re unable to understand like the Tea Party may wield more power than they do.

    That, or they treat news like a form of entertainment and Ron Paul just doesn’t bring in the viewers like Sarah Palin does.

  20. #20 |  TomG | 

    #19 John – both, most likely.

  21. #21 |  twency | 

    All right, all y’all convinced me. I agree, worth watching.

  22. #22 |  Thom | 

    The mainstream press is extremely statist. They rely on the government to tell them what they should be reporting on. People like Ron Paul who don’t necessarily fit that world view are very threatening to them.

    That said, I gave up on Paul when I read about the newsletter articles. I also think we should be focusing more on Gary Anderson. He’s the real deal.

  23. #23 |  paranoiastrksdp | 

    Tragic that I have to resort to watching a fake news show on comedy central to get real journalism.

  24. #24 |  ClubMedSux | 

    I also think we should be focusing more on Gary Anderson. He’s the real deal.

    Wow, you know you have a name recognition problem when even your SUPPORTERS can’t get your name right.

  25. #25 |  Bee | 

    It seems pretty hypocritical for supporters of the 2 major parties to call Ron Paul racist, when their parties enthusiastically have spent decades ratcheting up the drug war, which is nothing if not institutionalized racism.

  26. #26 |  SJE | 

    That was great. . RP threatened to upset the LAST GOP primary, stimulated a huge grass roots movement, and now is being actively ignored in this primary even as he shows himself to be, once again, a serious contender. As the piece says, Ron Paul planted the seed that formed the grass, while the others are just the moral majority in tricorner hats

  27. #27 |  SJE | 

    Not to mention that his son just won a Senate seat, on the coat tails of his father.

  28. #28 |  Thom | 

    @ClubMedSex – yeah…wow.

  29. #29 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    How much will they ignore Rand Paul in 2016 (when we have 100,000 dead in Iran and a Nicki Minaj song costs US$200 on iTunes)?

  30. #30 |  Andrew S. | 

    I also think we should be focusing more on Gary Anderson. He’s the real deal.

    I dunno. He’d have no chance at winning Minnesota. They probably still hold a grudge against him for missing that FG in the 1998 NFC Championship Game.

  31. #31 |  Chuchundra | 

    Yeah, the conspiracy theory jabber is getting a little thick in here, don’t you think?

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/16/ron_paul_2012/index.html

    the political world already knows that Paul has an army of unusually loyal and dedicated supporters who are willing to show up in large numbers at events like the straw poll and producing impressive-seeming vote totals for their candidate. They’ve been doing this for years now. Remember when Paul won the straw poll at the 2010 CPAC conference? Or in 2011? His supporters are very good at this kind of thing, channeling their unique passion into “money bombs,” Internet poll victories, and strong performances at straw polls and other events where a devoted minority can have an outsize influence.

    The key question about Paul’s campaign is one that the straw poll was never going to help answer: Can he build on his sizable (but ultimately limited) base of core supporters and develop mass appeal within the Republican Party?

    An you know, Stewart knows this. He’s a smart guy. The whole point of his Paul bit was to tweak Fox News and wind up Paul supporters while making with the funny. Mission accomplished there.

  32. #32 |  paranoiastrksdp | 

    What conspiracy theory jabber?

  33. #33 |  SJE | 

    Chuchundra: “The key question about Paul’s campaign is one that the straw poll was never going to help answer: Can he build on his sizable (but ultimately limited) base of core supporters and develop mass appeal within the Republican Party?”

    Sarah Palin has fanatical supporters, but is a moral majority wacko with terrible negatives. Rick Perry just suggested that they lynch Ben Bernanke, who was Bush’s advisor and appointed to the Fed by the GOP. Santorum was thrown out of office by his own state, and would be eaten alive in a General Election. It would make Obama v McCain seem like a competive race.

    So, tell me why it is that Palin, Perry, Santorum are “serious candidates” worthy of media attention and why Ron Paul is the crazy uncle that we should ignore?

    As for the die-hard supporters: they became the tea-party. While I believe that the TP has been hijacked by the moral majority, I can’t see how the MSM can justify ignoring the man who ignited the biggest challenge to the conventional system in the last few years.

  34. #34 |  SJE | 

    To follow up: all the talk of pulling out of foreign wars, balancing the budget that has been the center of attention in DC: thats Ron Paul. Its not Bachman, or most of the other GOP candidates.

  35. #35 |  Nick | 

    I wonder why Stewart didn’t use this clip (via ICYMI).

  36. #36 |  Nick T. | 

    Tom G 2 #18,

    These are all good points. Paul actually is really more of a constituionalist, as opposed to a libertarian. He looks at the Document and tries to read it as literally as possible, where as libertarians tend to view it as having been written with the intent to make people as free as possible and view its meaning in accordance. The best example is the right to privacy. I believe most libertarians view the Bill or Rights as creating the right to privacy out of a conglomeration of the 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments (or some such notion) and that of course the founders believed people were free from all kinds of government intrusions – not just the ones they listed. Paul does not see a Constituional right to privacy because it’s not written in there.

    Some times this point is largely academic because Paul also believs the fed gov can’t do things that are not similarly speciifically outlined, so he comes down on the same side of an issue.

    I try to tell people (usually liberals), there’s only one candidate who is anti-war, anti-imperialism, anti-drug war and pro civil liberties. Why can’t that be good enough? I mean god forbid we get a President like that if he ALSO happens to be anti-euthanasia, not suficiently pro-union, or believes in too low a tax rate (mostly stuff he wouldn’t affect anyway).

  37. #37 |  Chuchundra | 

    SJE: Palin’s not a serious candidate. As far as I know, she’s not a candidate at all. Santorum has no real support. Perry has said and written some very ridiculous things, but when has that ever been a major hurdle in a Republican primary? And he’s the sitting Governor of Texas, which gives him instant cred, deserved or not.

  38. #38 |  SJE | 

    Chuchundra: yes, but the last clip showed the anchor being interested in Sarah Palin over and above Ron Paul. They give her more air time than most (?all) candidates, and she is not even running, and has not particular policy platform. Its like Oprah from Wasilla.

    My point is that the media seems to consider Ron Paul as “not a serious candidate” while fawning over people who are at least as unserious, or who are not even running.

  39. #39 |  Kristen | 

    I dunno. He’d have no chance at winning Minnesota. They probably still hold a grudge against him for missing that FG in the 1998 NFC Championship Game.

    This Vikes fan has a grudge against Denny Green, not Gary Anderson. Gary did a bangup job all season long. If Denny Green had been a halfway decent coach, Gary wouldn’t have been in the position to win or lose the game. Fucking Denny Green.

  40. #40 |  Chuchundra | 

    SJE: It’s a fair point, although I’d say that the media attention given to Palin is more due to her status as a celebrity and as a possible kingmaker (God help us all), than as a candidate, serious or otherwise.

  41. #41 |  Jeff B. | 

    That CNN clip at the end was disgusting. Who is that anchor?

  42. #42 |  SJE | 

    #40: I agree she is a celebrity. But “kingmaker”? She motivated the base in 2010 election, but “her” candidates had trouble in the general election. The Delaware Senate election was almost a guaranteed GOP win for the favored GOP front runner, until Palin’s candidate, Christine O’Donnell, won the primary and went down flaming in the general election to an almost nobody.

  43. #43 |  New York Cynic | 

    #11 I would have to agree Neos have been around since the Cold War ended implies that their is an actual difference between them and “real” conservatives (whatever that means). I don’t consider people like Jack Hunter conservative because he is none of the sort, he is a Libertarian in my mind.

    The conservative movement is divided into “Neos” and Paleos. The neos obviously have a bigger presence in the media (Coulter, Savage, Malkin, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc) while Paleos really only have Buchanan as a presence in the MSM (thank god). Conservatism as a whole is not for liberty, they just make themselves appear better than the liberal. They just differ (in regards to Neo vs Paleo) on who they hate/want to kill more and what areas they want to apply the government jackboot.

  44. #44 |  Chuchundra | 

    When I refer to her as a possible kingmaker, I’m referring to the Republican nomination only. I believe that 2010 has shown her endorsement does hold some sway over the GOP hardliners that admire her.

    As far as the general election goes, I expect that the effect of her support would be either neutral or slight net negative on the campaign that receives it.

  45. #45 |  Aresen | 

    Boyd Durkin | August 16th, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    How much will they ignore Rand Paul in 2016 (when we have 100,000 dead in Iran and a Nicki Minaj song costs US$200 on iTunes)?

    How much would that $200 be in Swiss Francs?

  46. #46 |  cApitalist | 

    Paul gets quite a few things right, but as someone hinted above, these stations are not in the business of selling insightful commentary, they’re in the business of selling ads. Its the same reason ESPN looks over strong college football programs with small regional followings. There’s no conspiracy to keep my Mountaineers off Sports Center. A sub .500 Notre Dame team just sells more Bud Light. I can hear them now, “Boy, that Palin sure does move some adult diapers!” The MSM is a mirror of the sheep, not their shepherd.

  47. #47 |  New York Cynic | 

    #46 ESPN has its own agenda, their coverage of sports is horrible and very biased. With the rise of blogs over the past few years, ESPN is slowly becoming irrelevant to the objective sports fan.

  48. #48 |  Sally | 

    #41 — the reporter is Drew Griffin. What a schmuck!

  49. #49 |  John C. Randolph | 

    ” Paul has an army of unusually loyal and dedicated supporters who are willing to show up in large numbers at events like the straw poll and producing impressive-seeming vote totals for their candidate.”

    Remember when that was known as “getting out the vote”?

    It seriously pisses me off when the leftards act like showing up and participating is tantamount to ballot-box stuffing.

    -jcr

  50. #50 |  John C. Randolph | 

    I’d say that the reason for all the media attention directed at Palin is that she’s a woman on whom they’re permitted to pour out all of the misogyny that they bottle up otherwise. We’ve seen them do it to Michelle Malkin too, and I’m old enough to remember just how snotty they were to Margaret Thatcher.

    -jcr

  51. #51 |  John C. Randolph | 

    The allegations of racism turned out to be pretty solid

    Bullshit. He disavowed them repeatedly, and if Ron Paul were a racist, why in the world would he advocate ending the drug war?

    -jcr

  52. #52 |  John Q. Galt | 

    How much would that $200 be in BitCoins?

  53. #53 |  Stephen | 

    Some more stuff about Ron Paul being the only grown up in the race.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oULpsuoEY7c

  54. #54 |  Chuchundra | 

    #48: Nobody is saying that Paul did well in the straw poll because of some underhanded or unethical stratagem. Having a large group of dedicated supporters show up with thirty bucks each so they can vote for Paul isn’t stuffing the ballot box. It’s how the Iowa Straw poll works.

    But it’s kind of the point that’s being made. This isn’t a real vote. It’s very artificial and it’s meant to show organizational strength for those candidates who chose to participate. Bachmann gets a bump because these results show she’s built a legitimate operation. Pawlenty gets the boot because this is a fight he should have won. The candidates who mostly stayed out of it get a pass because you don’t have to participate if you don’t want to.

    As for Paul, this is the kind of event that he’s shown he can do very well in, so it’s kind of a non story. If he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to raise a lot of money and do well in Iowa and New Hampshire when it counts.

  55. #55 |  JOR | 

    “Bullshit. He disavowed them repeatedly,”

    Well shucks. I guess that showed them MSM beltwaytarians or whatever. Though to be fair, I doubt he is much of a racist these days. Contrarian racism (and police brutality apologism) was sort of an intellectual fad among conservative-leaning libertarians back then; even Rockwell and Rothbard eagerly partook. My guess is that he dabbled, then got over it, and now wishes he never wrote the articles in question.

    “and if Ron Paul were a racist, why in the world would he advocate ending the drug war?”

    Libertarian principle? (Misguided) constitutionalist principle? Many 18th and 19th Century abolitionists retained fairly racist sentiments – maybe he’s a racist but still doesn’t think black people should be sent to rape camps for smoking pot? There are plenty of people I find contemptible but I wouldn’t wish police harassment or SWAT raids or prison on them; I imagine racists could feel the same way about the objects of their bigotry.

  56. #56 |  The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » I Didn’t Even Know Gary Anderson Was Running in 2012! | 

    [...] came across this in this discussion thread at the Agitator that I thought was too good not to [...]

  57. #57 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    That was a wonderful illustration of the mainstream media trying to make sure that political debate in the U.S. remains acceptable to the mythical “centrists” out there. “You can just hold that Ron Paul stuff” huh huh. What the fuck kind of journalism is that?

    Noam Chomsky actually talked about this kind of stuff during the “Manufacturing Consent” days. I believe he called the process “concision.” Certain people or ideologies are simply too scary for the media, the two party system, corporate sponsors and the imaginary “centrist” citizen, so we can’t give these “fringe” people too much attention. Why are they scary? Because they question the military-industrial complex, like Ron Paul or any number of Green Party Candidates. Or because they question the drug war and mass incarceration, like Ron Paul and any number of Green Party candidates. Or because they say nasty things about corporate state capitalism, like Ron Paul and any number of Green Party candidates (though Ron Paul and the Green Party would disagree with how to tackle state capitalism).

    I have a number of issues on which I would disagree with Ron Paul. But I agree with him, in theory, on many more issues and I believe he deserves to be heard. If only there were a movement that combined Ron Paul’s ideas with Green Party ideas. That is a movement this Left-libertarian could support!

Leave a Reply