Morosoph's Journal: Traitorous Censorship by Mainstream Media

Although I think that for Ron Paul to win would be the most interesting result, and that I have problems with some of his policies (notably on abortion), I am simply astounded by just how much the mainstream media appear to believe that it is their right to pretty much exclude a popular candidate who isn't extolling hate from their coverage.

In legal terms, it is probably their right, but to deny the voting public the ability to make an informed decision is surely traitorous. If I lived in the US, I'd have seen a lot more evidence by now, but check out this graphic. The NYT are playing the same game (RP certainly has more support than Rudy, for example). Why is this even seen as acceptable by journalists? It isn't even bias; it's unprofessionalism.


Edit: NYT have updated their results since I write this article yesterday; Rudy had around 3% of the vote IIRC.

Well...

[Morosoph]

If they reported on the racism controversy, it would also get out that it was his followers rather than the man himself; the coverage would get more to find out about him, and however daft his policies might be, they feel very American. Such an approach would almost certainly do him good.

The first graphic [slashdot.org] shows more than a disregard, though; comparing the graphic with the scoreboard below is just bizarre. However, Rudy has been replace with Ron Paul since I posted this article in the NYT. Now that is

Well...

[DisownedSky]

Our whole system for picking a president is a giant clusterfuck. The media play their ignominious role in this, but I think it has more to do with cluelessness than malice.

Clusterfuck

[Morosoph]

I'm starting to agree with you. I suspect that Ron Paul's success falls outside journalists sense of reality, since mainstream media coverage of him has been practically non-existent to the present.

To give him proportional coverage is to induce a discontinuity in the reporting. Journalists, being artsy types, are especially liable to the idea that the discourse itself is reality, and often effect the world accordingly.

What about Kucinich?

[spun]

A much better and more mainstream candidate, yet excluded even from the debates.

Threading

[Morosoph]

I hit the wrong reply link. Sorry!

Of Course...

[Morosoph]

I just ran against the first link through random surfing, and decided that the principle was important enough to write a journal entry about. I'm not American, so I don't have full knowledge of the candidates, and my inability to vote means that I'd not seek detailed information ordinarily.

You might appreciate a recent BtAF [angryflower.com] cartoon, though!