BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS

« Pay to say -- the finest participatory democracy money can buy | Main | What they didn't teach you in civics class about how some bills become law »

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Why the media ignore Ron Paul

Jon Stewart riffed amusingly and with a bit of indignation on last night's "Daily Show" on the idea that reporters and commentators are unfairly giving short shrift to Texas Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Paul after Paul's strong, second-place showing in the Iowa straw poll (below). But in No, Ron Paul is not getting screwed, Salon's Steve Kornacki explains:



And those tempted to argue that this is a chicken/egg situation and the reason Ron Paul isn't a plausible contender is because the media don't treat him as a plausible contender should save their literal or digital breaths: Paul has some intriguing ideas but, all told, he's too far out of the political/ideological mainstream to be elected, no matter how much attention he gets.  

Again, Kornacki:


UPDATES: Steve Chapman sees the same handwriting on the wall --

Paul gets ignored because everyone assumes -- accurately -- that he can't win the nomination, or even make a decent run at it.

but finds Paul a vital voice nevertheless.

And via Sullivan comes advice to many of the commenters below from Why did Ron Paul lose? published in March, 2008

The last thing that's going to help is hearing some nut screaming at the top of his lungs that Ron Paul is the greatest man since Jesus. It makes your candidate look like Lyndon LaRouche. People go with what they see, and for every time I had a calm, logical discussion with a RP supporter, I had five times I had to listen to a disjointed diatribe about liberty that told me nothing about how RP would deal with my problems, or the problems I thought that this country needed to address, and everything about things I didn't care about. Perhaps that's me...the votes suggest otherwise.






Last I remember, it was up to the people to decide, not stupid news agencies which are all losing business. The news amd their pundits pick and choose candidates by who they cover. They want Romney perry or Bachmann. If Ron Paul isn't nominated, Obama will win

Dear Mr. Zorn,

We appreciate your interest in The Republican Party and the position of Cheerleader for which you applied. As you are probably aware, times are tight and people are losing interest in our product. As a result, we've had to make dramatic cuts to our Cheerleading Department. After reviewing the applications, yours was not selected for further consideration.

The selection committee appreciates the lifetime you've invested in supporting The Republican Party. We encourage you to apply for other positions in our organization, for which you qualify, in the future.

We wish you every personal and political success with your search and in the future. Thank you, again, for your loyal, unwavering interest in our party.


The Republican Party

Your math skills don't have to be very sharp in the media, do they? He quadrupled his votes at the Iowa poll over last cycle. He got 10% of the vote in the Iowa caucus. If he gets 4 times as many votes as he did last time, that's 40% of the popular vote. In NH it would be 32%.

And the propaganda is amusing. The latest Gallop poll has Paul in third place with 14% of the vote. And this is with the corrupt media in this country engaged in a blackout. How will you explain yourselves when we do an end run around you, buy our own air time, get our message out and win?

--Wondering why you didn't link the Stewart video? You linked in a rebuttal to it. I highly recommend everyone go watch it. If it wasn't so sad, I'd say it was the funniest thing I'd seen in months.

ZORN REPLY -- I meant to and have since embedded it.


As opposed to Michelle Bachmann / Sarah Palin, to whom you devote considerable column space.

They are real presidential material, right?

Your hypocrisy is off the scale here, Eric.


Yet other unelectables on the political fringe, such as Bachmann and Palin, seem to dominate the news... so something else is at play here too. Why is their "noise" acknowledged while Paul's is ignored? Is it as simple as a pretty face? I hope not, but I fear that it has quite a bit to do with it.

Too bad though, Rep. Paul has some good things to say and I wish he would get the airtime he earned with his #2 showing in the Straw Poll (not that it means much that he got the 2nd highest amount of straws; nor does it mean much that Rep. Bachmann got the most- pay to vote polling seldom represents the truth); he should at least be mentioned in the press so as to avoid the potential chicken/ egg argument. He's really not all that different from someone like a Howard Dean (as far as being out there on the political spectrum), who I recall getting tons of coverage... what gives?

--I agree with Bruce L. I would add that Bachmann is likely jockeying for a VP ticket with whomever gets the Rep nomination. Palin- whatever... her moment is about to pass...

ZORN REPLY -- Palin gets attention because she was on the national ticket in 2008; Bachmann knocked a one-time presumptive top-tier candidate, T-Paw, right out of the race. She has a path, however long and dubious, to the nomination. Paul simply doesn't.

Is the writer a "slow" learner?

You know the real reason this is a transparent lie?

Because the media ignored him in favor of candidates with less support and less money LAST TIME, TOO.

The problem with the media is that they rarely recognize when the publics interests shift.... The Republican party didn't want the Tea Party either. In fact, they spent a fair amount of money to prevent it no matter what it party members wanted.

Ron Pauls success (or failure) is entirely dependent on the economy. If the economy continued to decline, then the public will loose interest in the establishment. Also, if we have a crisis (like an EU crisis), then I think you and the media will be very surprised at how well Ron Paul will poll.

--Out of the woodwork.....

ZORN REPLY -- Let no one say that Paul's supporters aren't quick and energetic. I remember this from four years ago... mention Saint Ron and your comment board gets a Paul-valanche.

Keep it up, Eric. The more the media tries to ignore and marginalize Ron Paul, the more popular he gets.

More importantly, you're showing the younger generation just how rigged the system really is. The blowback is going to be awesome!

So we need media commissars to decide who can be a presidential candidate do we? Do you people get off on some power trip thinking you can guide the country by preselecting who America can choose to be president?

Even if what you say was true, a presidential election is not simply about picking the winning horse. In a free society it is supposed to be a time where we freely exchange ideas and where the populace gauge and assess the direction the nation is headed in and what the alternatives are. When we are only presented with the same old tired, corporate backed ideas of more debt, bigger government, more phony wars and more failed government programs then how are we supposed to ever solve these problems as a nation?

Does Herman Cain have a chance of being president? No. I would say Ron Paul has a whole lot more support than he ever has and yet I will see the media mention his name far more often and in more glowing terms than Ron Paul.

The media's job is to report. Not distort reality to fit their own world view. What you people engage in is appalling and completely dishonest.

The people are onto your hypocrisy and bias. Old rags like the Chicago Tribune don't have much longer in this world. The old gatekeeper relics of the past are crumbling as the freer internet outlets rise up around them. I hope you have a blog as a fallback for when the Tribune goes under.

Always entertaining watching talking heads like Eric Zorn playing the "See how much power we wield?" game. I'm sure it makes him feel like he's somehow "connected" and maybe even gets him those exclusive Cubs tickets and special seating that Average Joe will never get.

Long ago I marginalized Eric Zorn with the standard pet name: "Eric Zero".

This article is a joke... right?

Just another few paragraphs of defeatist nonsense. It takes courage to stand for truth and honesty....we really are screwed.

EZ: While Paul is a crackpot on most issues, Stewart's complaint was that the various reports he showed simply ignored him in favor of candidates with even lower ratings.
The only reason Paul gets any press is his opposition to the war in Iraq & that he favors legalization of drugs. Then people learn that his "libertarian" views don't extend to abortion & that makes him a hypocrite & destroys his support from most anti-war people. Paul also believes their is a plot to replace the dollar with a North American currency called the Amero, which definitely puts him into crackpot territory.
In 2008, Gawker was referring to Paul's supporters as "Paultards" because they were so abysmally stupid & monomaniacal in their support of him & their ignorance of his views on most subjects.
The fact is, the more people learn about Paul, the lower his poll numbers go.

Stewart is probably the most trenchant media critic around today & it's appalling that a comedian is the only one that's doing the serious media criticism instead of the media itself.
He regularly skewers all types for their hypocritical views, especially when they contradict what they said just days earlier.
While Fox is the subject of most of his attacks, it's only because they are the worst at this. CNN comes in second & don't forget how he eviscerated Cramer on his insane cheerleading for the market bubble.

---wow! Thanks ERIC ZORN!!! For proving to be another pundit who obviously pays zero attention to this current election! You are like the other journalist that are part of the mainstream....a poison to the American People. Your nonsense is being exposed and exposed quickly. Have fun losing all credibility with the other deceptive f tards who do not report fair and balanced. lol losa!

ZORN REPLY -- I'm still waiting for calm, rational, "here's why I think you're wrong..." post from a Paul supporter. They predictably sputter back with this kind of rage and defiance: You are an idiot (or, what is it above, an inattentive poisonous deceptive f-tard "losa" whose nonsensical writings have no credibility) and events will prove you wrong! That's not an argument, that's a tantrum.

Ron Paul has many questionable ideas, but he should stay in the race for one reason: He's the only candidate on the national stage who says unequivocally and forcefully that all this country's overseas military campaigns are wrong -- not just wasteful, but wrong for several reasons. Unfortunately, as one of the Stewart clips shows, it's precisely that stand that evokes dismissive eye-rolling among the TV punditry.

Hey Chicago Tribune. You suck at predicting who might win President. Remember this from 1948?


Me neither. But you obviously still suck.

I'm putting you on my list to ignore.

Wow, pure nonsense. Ron Paul has a MASSIVE following at college campuses all over the United States. His supporters have quadrupled over the last 3 years, and he received the loudest applause during the Iowa debate. He consistently wins large online polls. He has more support from serving armed forces than any other candidate. He's the one that started the Tea Party, only to have it's message diluted by idiots like Palin, Bachmann (the former and latter being given more attention on the right/left MSM despite their obvious unelectability), Beck, and Hannity. What mainstream America has only just begun demanding from their government, Ron Paul has been saying for 30 freaking years. It's not the new's job to create or break "front runners", that's what elections are for. By ignoring Ron Paul, and giving attention to Bachmann/Pallin you only prove your continuing decline in relevance.

--The press is simply failing to cover the news by ignoring any candidate with the level of support Ron Paul demonstrates. The press is failing to inform the public properly. People will decide what is mainstream and what is not.

Ron Paul's ideas may represent a revolutionary shift in the role of government. Such a radical shift in government's role is considered out of mainstream; but, radical ideas take time to get hold. Just a few election cycles ago, the radical idea of any black man becoming president would have been deemed as not in mainstream and yet we have a black president today.

Good press will inform the public of the growth of Ron Paul's support and acknowledge the persistent support for his ideas among a growing number of supporters. Like it or not, Ron Paul is having an impact on American politics and as long as War and Economy are subjects of great concern for citizens, his support will continue to grow.

A massive following at college campuses (and high schools) doesn't mean much because it is still not a large number and students tend to mobilize around either inspirational liberals or niche conservatives, especially libertarians. Otherwise, they are meh. He has a rabid following, but it is one with a ceiling, because most people are going to reject him when they hear the crazy things he says about Iran. They are great in theory but not so great if you are in Israel having missiles lobbed at you.

Another biased HACK trying to report news but instead makes up stories. Will be sure to add your name to the list of discredited reporters..

Pawlenty had routinely polled less than 5% nationwide but was "considered" a top contender if he could just get his campaign off the ground. The simple truth is the views and opinions really have nothing to do with polls, straw or anything of the like. Someone doesn't like what Ron Paul has to say and since his numbers have been growing I don't think it is mainly the public.

Therefor the conclusion appears to be that someone doesn't like his anti-war message. Period.

If you follow closely he gets the most heat and dispersion when touting anti-war stances both in the Republican camp and suprisingly often in the Democrat as well. Someone likes their wars and wants the public to continue to feel unsecure unless we have a military budget that is unsustainable. The unfortunate thing is that many pundits such as Zorn have no real basis or facts for unelectability that holds true in all cases. They again are all opinion. If Paul were given the same respect in terms of electability, considered top tier for nearly tying Bachmann in Ames and the like he would definitely have more votes. To say that media idea-ocracy has no effect on a race is absurd. So therefor if the media does impact the outcome, how many votes would Paul have from the public who are sick of the war, from the public who are sick of insincere politicians and the public who are sick of debt if he were no subject to continuous derision from our good journalists like Zorn? He would definetly have more and if that were the case would he then be topping polls? We may never know.

Good job Zorn keep circling the whisper, the country owes you a debt of gratitude. I hope you feel proud.

This is how your article reads:

Why the media ignore Ron Paul

Paragraph 1: Ron Paul isn't getting screwed. [ Inserted regurgitated quote ] Summary: Ron Paul made noise back in 2008, but didn't win. Ron Paul will never win. Don't pay attention to him.

Paragraph 2: Paul is not mainstream, don't talk about him. [ Inserted regurgitated quote ] Summary: Ron Paul made noise back in 2008, but didn't win.

Eric Zorn

Really intelligent, Zorn.

All these so called journalists need to get some logic. I mean it's incredible how one can defend Paul not being mentioned in the media with the kind of logic presented in this article. Do they really think people are stupid?

You don't report on Paul because you think the noise around him does not represent REAL support of his candidacy?

I would take off this article entirely if I was you so as not to embarrass yourself.

I can't wait until Kip gets here and puts all you tea partiers in your place!

That salon article states Ron Paul doesnt deserve the attention because he didnt win the straw poll. Thats all well and good except that even before the poll once it was a possibility that Paul could win, there was all this talk about how the straw poll doesnt matter, as a way of preparing to nullify Ron Pauls win.

Long story short:
1. There is a media blackout. Its obvious.
2. Pauls detractors usually dont know his positions, or misunderstand them, which is related to #1.
3. Pauls supporters are so dedicated because of #1.
4. If once were to remove #1 and the main stream media acted like cheerleaders for Paul for just 2 months, Paul would be #1 in all the polls.

How sad and pathetic the puppet press must feel. The tortured logic needed to dismiss such an important figure is comical. I've come from the left to realize the only hope for this country is Ron Paul warts and all!

Mainstream Ideas = Trillions in Debt.

Why does the media ignore him? Probably because his own political party ignores him. If he's the so-called godfather of the Tea Party movement, why aren't they behind him instead of Bachmann, Palin, and now possibly Perry? He's a loose cannon, who breaks from Republican doctrine to push his own views, legislation. The Tea Party won't back him because they can't trust he'll blindly follow their rules, though he's backed many of their believed ideals long before they existed. And you won't get many Republican votes if you're anti-war. He's an interesting addition to the race, but he's just too radical for voters to be comfortable with him, what his personal following seems to like most about him.

Just a few things, even if no one reads to the bottom of these comments.

1.) After a commenter pointed out that you didn't embed The Daily Show segment and you added it you still didn't add the portion about Ron Paul being ignored. I'd really like to chalk that up to an oversight, so please correct it. You linked to the segment that mentions Ron Paul as coming in second, but not the part where Jon Stewart points out how (with clear examples) the media has ignored Ron Paul. Would you mind adding the correct video, please?

2.) As was mentioned in a previous post: The argument while it makes sense on the surface is built on the idea that the media knew his numbers were soft in 2007-8 before the actual primaries happened. The media I saw did not point out his strong polling before the actual primaries, nor did they invite him to participate, as it did the majority of the other candidates, in various events. One blatant example is that of the presidential candidate round table held on fox news after a debate in the last presidential race. Ron Paul was not invited to participate despite his having polled much higher than several of the invited candidates such as Rudy Giuliani.

Your argument then while it tries to justify his being ignored or marginalized now is doing so by trying to justify ignoring him in the past. Which leaves the chicken/egg argument still valid, and sets yourself and other media outlets up as saying, "See we were historically right in this case which means we are going to be right again" If you genuinely believe that you are capable of gauging what the people want or believe and that it is in the peoples best intrest for you to follow those instincts rather than being as objective as possible that's your prerogative. But given the general history of reporting on major issues (wars, economics, gross misrepresentations of statistics on nationally syndicated shows/columns) I'd prefer it if you just tried to give us the facts of the day rather than trying to justify previous blunders or to try to present only those facts that agree with a particular view point.

3.) Does reporting require a measure of discretion? Absolutely, but giving candidates "front runner" status while practically ignoring the rest seems like bias, not discretion. Could the media treat the candidate dropping out of the race as the signal to not cover him/her? Given the number of 24 hour news stations and columns there are this is feasible. I feel the level of genuine democratic debate on the things that matter most has been stifled in this country by a lack of genuine reporting. This is why so many people have been flocking to Jon Stewart and alternative news sources (blogging, etc). Even amidst the comedy of The Daily Show, and sometimes I find it repugnant, there is honest debate and reporting happening. Jon Stewart must wake up every morning thinking he's in the twilight zone when people use his show to get their news because they feel there is nothing else worth watching. Goodness knows I do.

Johnny Cakes,

They obviously don't need my help.

I'm not a Paul supporter but I don't get why the media should not cover him because they think he can't win. The chicken/egg argument that EZ dismisses seems perfectly relevant to me.

Lots of articles in the paper every day don't really matter that much in the grand scheme of things but the media rightly covers them because they are news. The Cubs won't win the World Series but they still get covered.

I'm not buying your / Steve Kornacki's argument, EZ.

omg this guy. ughh how about the real reason why he's ignored is cause corps are running the news and they realize if paul was a success that there way of life is practially over. none of these blogs or articles i read dont mention this at all but thats the obvious reason why media gives him no light i was expecting a fair assesment from this article. what a dissapointment. paul does have a chance deny it as much you like

--I nominate this article for an "I buried Paul" award.

Would somebody please set up a website with links to these anti-Paul articles? Something like www.iburiedpaul2012.com ?

This sort of thing should be documented for historical purposes.

ZORN REPLY -- Still waiting.....

Nonsense and distortions. So you don't agree with Paul that's cool. But can you please stop with the attempted marginalization. Let the voters decide. I know you mindless readers need to be told what to think, but I'm not buyin it. Things are going to change. Ron Pauls ideas have been set loose and they will be persued regardless of this primarys outcome. You lose thanks for playin

“he's too far out of the political/ideological mainstream to be elected”

NBC’s Chuck Todd and Fox News Chris Wallace called Ron Paul “the godfather of the Tea Party.” Chuck went on to say that he was “the Republican presidential candidate with more influence with the Republican Party in 2010 than any of those other guys that we covered in 2008.”

Chris Wallace: "The country or certainly the Republican party has moved more in his direction in a lot of these issues such as government spending, the reach of government, the intrustion in people's lives"



That was not pretty much it. He had 10 second place finishes.

"the product of his army mobilizing for relatively low-turnout events and producing deceptively impressive results."

Obama wouldn't even be the Democratic nominee in 2008 had he not done the same thing.

"he is not a plausible contender for the GOP nomination"
Michelle Bachman is not a plausible contender for the GOP nomination, but that doesn't stop her from getting on the 5 Sunday talk shows this week or on the cover of Newsweek.

"the experience of 2008 demonstrated that it's very easy to exaggerate the breadth of Paul's support."

What major media company or even major media personality exaggerated or even mentioned his support? Even when he outraised in Q4 2007 every single Republican, he was ignored. 2008 only show how the elite can crush a candidate.

For the first time since I started voting in 1980, I will vote for a Republican for president, even if the elite still try to paint him as the fringe.


But you didn't answer the question from above. Howard Dean is the left's version of Ron Paul. He was unelectable. Even the left said he was a hot head crackpot that couldn't get more than a small dedicated following. But yet the news media were all over him. Is this not hypocrisy?

Ron Paul was called many things (none of them good) in 2003 when he said that too many Americans were able to buy a house. He said that because of this the housing market was creating a bubble and when it popped it would "catastrophic". The news media, such as yourself, stated he was a quack trying to stand in the way of the american dream. It was the government handing out freebies to people who shouldn't own a house because they can't yet afford it that caused this mess. From the beginning he said the government was playing too much of a role and if they don't get out of the way then the economy will adjust itself and come crashing down. The news media bashed his libertarian views. What ended up happening with that one?

30 years ago Ron Paul was saying,as he still does today, that when a country comes off a standard to base their monetary system inflation will skyrocket because the kings start to believe they can print all the money they need. Over the course of at least the last decade inflation has started to take hold and the fed has 0 power to raise the interest rates because they are trying to control the mess they made by printing too much money. Not to mention the fact that coming off the gold standard is illegal. It was also a very bad idea.

You said, and so have many others, that he is too far out of the mainstream to get any media coverage. This would be a fair point if the "mainstream" candidates hadn't gotten us into this mess. Mainstream hasn't worked for us. "Mainstream" politicians gave us the tech bubble, the housing bubble, the great recession, bailouts, tarp and all the rest.

"A little revolution is a healthy thing from time to time.". I couldn't have said it better myself Mr. Jefferson. IN SPITE of the media, this revolution will continue. Maybe Mr Paul can get elected. Maybe not. But the revolution rolls on. The people are tired of the news media picking our candidates and telling us who the next president will be. We are tired of politicians spending our (actually not ours. They spent our money 25 years ago. I should say spending our children's) money on worthless pet projects that do nothing but hurt this great country.

Can Ron Paul get elected? Sadly, probably not because of news media pundits like yourself. But as the wise poster above stated about the tea party, you cannot stop us. You cannot drown us out. Gen X is tired of this and the revolution has already started. There is no stopping this train now.

ZORN REPLY -- Howard Dean became chair of the DNC.. think Paul is in line for that kind of gig.
What will stop your train is that, even in tiny electoral markets like Iowa in the caucuses and New Hampshire in the first-in-nation primary where retail politics and lots of debates will give Paul lots of chance to be heard by everyone who wants to vote, he won't win. Would that we lived in a punditocracy where columnists and commentators ruled, but we don't... we live in a democracy where there simply isn't the support nor the votes to lift Paul into the top tier of candidates.
Rail at the messenger all you want, just like you did in 2008.

The media and establishment will do anything not to mention Ron Paul. Last election, the results of the Ames straw poll were read in reverse order: from losers to winner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuxlhelO6Q8 .
This year they said "Michelle Bachmann is the winner. Goodnight." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuxlhelO6Q8 .Its enough to make you question whether Bachmann won at all. When Ron Paul is elected president, the media will probably only report on local politics.

I am a huge Ron Paul supporter (wait, don't stop reading!) but I concede that regardless of his treatment in the media he has a tough path to the nomination, let alone the presidency. On an issue-by-issue basis, I agree with him more often than any other candidate in recent memory and, believe me, I would love nothing more than to see him in the White House.

Still, he has some political weaknesses that have to be acknowledged. At times it seems like he doesn't want to be elected because he never misses an opportunity to have an iconic moment and is unwilling to be pragmatic in the face of popular opposition. This principles-over-pragmatism approach is admirable but it's not a winning strategy. Also, as much as I like how he treats Americans like adults by addressing complex issues, a lot of those issues don't resonate.

Still, I think he's more electable now than he was in 2008. As I've stated in previous comments, I voted for Paul in the 2008 primary because it was more important to have a "Barry Goldwater moment" and change the party, rather than win the election. Well, we are on our way to changing the party and Ron Paul's contribution to the 2008 campaign and his efforts since then are no small part of that.

It would be great if he could win but, like Goldwater, his greatest contribution may turn out to be his influence on conservative thought and conservative politicians. I am not writing him off for 2012 and I want to talk myself into the idea that he can beat Obama. But a lot of what he is able to do depends on him, not just the media. Whatever his level of support turns out to be, I'm definitely behind his message and I'm hopeful that he'll continue his campaign to the end.

Ron Paul says crazy things about Iran? I think what is crazy is all the politicians who follow AIPAC around like lapdogs to pledge undying fealty to Israel in case of a war with Iran, even hoping to provoke such a war. After nearly bankrupting the USA with our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now doubling down in Pakistan, Libya, etc., this war on radical Islam has all but led our nation down the same parh as the Soviet Union. I'm sure getting into a war with Iran for the sake of Israel, especially one requiring a ground invasion, would drive our economy over the brink. Now THAT is crazy!

I was attracted to Ron Paul because of his stand against foreign wars and his dedication to the Constitution, especially his insistence that such issues as restriction on abortions and recognition of gay marriages must be left to the States to decide for themselves without Congressional (or Supreme Court) interference. It was only after I looked harder at his CRAZY ideas, like abolishing the FED and repealing national anti-drug laws, and looking at the evidence that backs them up, that I saw he was right on these issues, too - or at least closer to being right than his critics now in control in Washington.

Ron Paul is far more important than a politician, the more you learn about him the more inclined you are to support him. He is a politician, the more you listen to him the more likely you are to be persuaded to hold opinions you never previously thought possible. Now THAT is a phenomenon worth covering.

--Wow. I'm not even a Ron Paul person, and this reasoning just doesn't work. Polls give a definite, quantified result - yes they're small, biased samples of people in this political process, but...that's the process. The election is general, these results are necessarily skewed/flawed because that's the process - the sample being polled is not representative of the party, and clearly not the electorate. Many, many people will line up to lambast the system as flawed, me included, but that's another story. For now, it's the system. The argument here seems to be that the quantified result should be subjectively interpreted. 100% of pre-2008 democratic or republican party nominees had been white men, so discount candidates who are not white men. I get that he won't win the party's nomination, he's the wrong kind of radical, but that will be apparent when the process exposes him as irrelevant, not when others determine what's static in a pretty clear data set...

--Here is your rational reply Zorn.... I am a member of the military. I have never known a time where we have not been at war. This war has cost us trillions of dollars and we are now flat broke and not safer for it. Ron Paul is the only one who will end this war. 70% of the American people support that decision. The military overwhelmingly support him- He received more campaign contribution from us than all of the GOP candidates combined. He also received 14% in the most recent Gallup Poll and as you know came in second (by less than 200 votes) in the Iowa Straw Poll. I guess it's you and the media that need to explain to us why a the choice of the military, whose foreign policy is in line with 70% of the American people, and is polling in 3rd for the GOP nomination, is not a credible candidate. You know he deserves more coverage Zorn. If for anything else- you owe it to the people who have been at war for over a decade that overwhelmingly support him..... Hopefully that was rational and was clear... and I hope you respond. I think you are a good writer Zorn and I still read you even though I'm away from my beloved Chicago!!!

ZORN REPLY -- That was rational and calm, thanks. You might be right about the public in general supporting rapid pull-outs from Afghanistan and Iraq, damn the consequences, but I don't think that view has much purchase among the GOP primary electorate, which has a broad social conservative element that recoils from some of Paul's more libertarian ideas. He is to Republicans what Dennis Kucinich was to Democrats.

In some ways he strikes me as a third-party hopeful who doesn't quite yet realize that he's not a good fit for either major party. If he wants not to be forgotten after the New Hampshire primary, he should take that route... because the route he's now on is pretty clearly a dead end.

How is he unelectable, exactly? In the world outside of the internet I don't know a single person who wouldn't vote for him in the primary. This is not hyperbole. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all looking at the same person. We don't all agree with everything he says, but we all see the same thing in him.

What is the purpose of the media if it is my primary source for inaccuracy and omission?

Mr. Zorn, what you say would have made sense in 2008 before the Federal Reserve loaned 16 trillion dollars to insolvent banks and other financial institutions in exchange for junk collateral.

The LA Times (same owner as the Tribune) has actually deigned to post several articles on Ron Paul. Most of them are very positive including one yesterday suggesting Dr. Paul could win the Iowa caucus.

Instead of boosting the Tribune's Ad revenues, I suggest you support their sister paper that at least has the class to acknowledge Ron Paul Exists.

Jul.22, 2011
Ron Paul polls just 4 points below Obama if the two ran head-to-head

Aug. 3, 2011
Ron Paul calls 'super Congress' plan 'monstrous'

Aug 12, 2011
Did Ron Paul win the GOP debate in Ames?

Aug. 13, 2011
Ron Paul comes in from the fringe

Aug 15, 2011
Ron Paul: Could he win the Iowa caucuses?

Not strictly Ron Paul articles but not only do they acknowledge that he exists there is halfway decent coverage on him

Aug. 12, 2011

Aug 13, 2011
Ames straw poll: Michele Bachmann beats Ron Paul -- by 152 votes

--It's pricelessly amusing to see the Paulbots turn out in force to protest the assertion that Paulbots turn out in force.

From Wikipedia: Creative writing is considered to be any writing, fiction, poetry, or non-fiction, that goes outside the bounds of normal professional, journalistic, academic, and technical forms of literature.

Zorn is a 1980 graduate of the University of Michigan, where he was an arts section editor at the Michigan Daily and a creative writing/English literature major.

I think that speaks for itself.

--The fact that so many people speak negatively about him made me want to learn more about him. Surprisingly, I agree with just about everything he says. Guess I'm nutty too. He's got my vote.

---So you want a factual, logical argument for why your approach is flawed and unethical? It's simple: "Ron Paul is unelectable" is not fact. It is opinion, analysis, judgment. If you wish to give that opinion in, say, an editorial, then that would be consistent with journalistic integrity.

But what you are doing instead is inserting your personal analysis into the modus operandi of your news reporting as if it were fact. When you say that Ron Paul is "unelectable", what you are doing is making a prediction regarding the future of electoral opinion. Well, I'm very glad for your opinion, but the last I checked, your job is reporter, not fortune teller.

The closest we have to "facts" regarding Ron Paul is numbers. And here is what they say.

1) 2nd-place in Iowa by a hair. Others have pointed out the extensive coverage afforded to, say, Mike Huckabee for a similar showing last year. And again, Jon Stewart pointed out how people who finished below Paul are being given more coverage, which should cause a intellectual hemorrhage in anyone who tries to defend it.

2) Ron Paul's fundraising efforts have been historic, and have only just been recently matched by Romney. In his last presidential run he set records for amount raised in one day. Wolf Blitzer, whose professionalism is not, to the best of my knowledge, under question, and who has never portrayed himself as a Ron Paul supporter, was quick to recognize that this is news.

3) Ron Paul's poll results at this point put him with the purported "top tier".

Romney: 24%
Perry: 17%
Paul: 14%
Bachmann: 13%

Paul tied for third as 12% ("Top tier" Bachmann received 7%)

The average of all national polls at realclearpolitics.com breaks the entire field down like this:

Romney: 20.2%
Perry: 18.4%
Palin: 10.0%
Bachmann: 9.6%
Paul: 8.8%
Cain: 5.0%
Gingrich: 5.0%
Pawlenty: 2.3%
Huntsman: 2.2%
Santorum: 1.8%

Looking at the entire field using only objective measures, the most consistent definition of "Top Tier" would have five people in it: Romney, Perry, Paul, Palin, and Bachmann. By just about all measures these five continually leapfrog over each other, whereas just about everyone else in the field makes little movement out of their statistical norms.

4) Paul's numbers are not only high, but an objective analysis of them shows that they have only been increasing over time. This is something that virtually no other candidate can claim. Most have their moment, fizzle out, then disappear. Paul's popularity has been on a slow, long-term steady uptick, and so far it is not showing any objective signs of slowing down. Using his past performance as some ironclad determinant of his future prospects is therefore logically invalid, and again amounts to forecasting, not reporting.

The facts, therefore, dictate that if there is any "top tier" that Paul should rightly considered a part of it. But you have lost your sight on what a "fact" is. You actually thinking that Paul's electability is a "fact", and one so strong that when other facts interfere with it, well then, there must be something wrong with them. Paul wins an online poll? People must be spamming it. Paul raises tons of money? Must be people with nothing better to spend it on. Paul takes 2nd in Iowa? The poll must be meaningless. There are designations for the kind of people that ignore factual evidence in favor of their preconceptions, and none of them are complimentary.

You don't think he's electable? Fine. You are of course entitled to your opinion. But you are a news reporter. Whether you like it or not, Paul's success is news, and the data disproving his "unelectability" is coming in more and more rapidly. Either recognize this and give him the coverage he's earned, or don't act surprised when you guys in the MSM keep going bankrupt.

ZORN REPLY -- Actually, I'm a columnist. This is a blog where I offer my analysis and opinion.
Feel free to come back here and taunt me mercilessly when Ron Paul is nominated to head the GOP ticket or even finishes a close second in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

CHESNAVICH REPLY - My apologies for getting your job title incorrect. Nevertheless, if you are defending other reporters with your rationale, the same retort applies.

You did, however, come up with an objective and fair standard for him to meet. Good. Since I likely won't be able to keep up enough to come back here, I'll only tell you what I'll need to see in turn to believe that you are being fair, and that is this: if he does, as you place as a necessary test, come in first or second in at least one of these two states, that you not invent a new rationale and admit you were wrong. I have no desire to taunt or gloat. I just want to see people thinking clearly. You have now set your test for falsifiability: how honest you are about it will now depend on how much you follow through on it should circumstances prove it necessary.

In any event, my argument above stands. You are free to make prognostications, but from a reporter's perspective, Ron Paul is by all objective measures top tier, and deserves the coverage normally afforded to one.

ZORN REPLY -- Regular readers know I'm not above dining on crow when events prove me wrong. I'm looking at you, 2005 White Sox.

However, I find it hard to imagine that any of the Paul partisans who've popped up here to taunt and rage will ever come back six months from now and say something to the effect of, "Yeah, you know, I liked his ideas and I still like his ideas, but it was kind of delusional of me to imagine that, with his constellation of views, he ever had a realistic chance to be president of the United States. Sorry I went off on you."
That ain't EVER gonna happen.

"too far out of the political/ideological mainstream to be elected"

This is used for anyone who is against the wars. Never mind that the overwhelming majority of the American people are against the wars.

The "mainstream" media are corporate Pravda, out censoring the Soviet version in order to promote the interests of their corporate owners.

"Ron Paul is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful presidential candidate I've ever known in my life."

-- MrJM

Seems like this discussion should be more about whether it's right for the media to have as much influence / discretion in how they cover elections as EZ and Kornacki think they should than about Ron Paul himself.

I find it disturbing that the media think that's their job. I know it's a fine balance between selling papers and covering the news, but this view seems biased way too much to the former.

ZORN REPLY -- I suppose there are some in my line of work who have a vested interest in marginalizing non-marginal candidates, but for the most part I think journalists try to prioritize as they inform; reflect the reality of races rather than what certain candidates wish were the reality.

This can lead to strong differences of opinion as well as the philosophical question of whether we are creating conventional wisdom rather than simply reflecting it.

It comes up a lot. It came up last year here during the gubernatorial race when Green Party candidate Rich Whitney and his supporters were ripped that Whitney didn't get a seat at some of the big debates and was not treated in the news coverage as a co-equal candidate to Quinn (D) and Brady (R).

The Ron Paul question gets complicated because of his demonstrated ability to marshal passionate backers in order to show very well at such events as the straw poll. I believe it's wishful thinking that 27 percent of the Iowa Republican electorate supports Ron Paul for president; that to say so makes too much of 4,671 votes at a fundraising event.

He's not been well vetted. Google "Ron Paul Political Report" or "Ron Paul Survival Report." Ask yourself how his strong libertarian views on the civil rights act and the voting rights act would play with African Americans. How his environmental and immigration record would play with independent voters.

(Yes, I know, Paul claims that somehow these vile newsletters bearing his name and ostensible imprimatur went out WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE. Gosh, you know how that can happen. See here http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88421/ron-pauls-racism )

Look, my life will be easier and more fun if Ron Paul became a truly viable candidate. This blog is doing big numbers today and I've been off working on other stuff. So my vested interest would be to pump him up, magnify his importance and his chances, tease this along. Yet I must call `em like I see `em.

CHESNAVICH REPLY - Well in my case you are probably right, but only because I probably wouldn't be back either way. Conversations go on all over the internet: most news article pages now have comments sections included. I take part in them when it seems relevant, but it'd be a logistical migraine to keep some running tally of what someone said anywhere, anytime.

That's why instead I simply insist on an honor system. If I'm wrong, I accept it, and in turn I ask others to do the same. The thing is, I'm not making a prediction that he will win it. I never have. I'm only saying that right now the media response to him is disproportionate to his objectively measured popularity and success. His coverage should be based on that, not individual determinations about his future prospects.

--The difference between a candidate like Ron Paul and a candidate like Rick Perry (who is, I know, the man whose candidacy and the attention it has received, has most deeply offended the Paul supporters) is the same difference that applied earlier this year to the Pittsburgh Pirates and Milwaukee Brewers: With both teams sitting very close to first place in their division, it appeared on paper that the Pirates and Brewers were similar. But those who knew baseball knew that the Pirates were at or very near their ceiling; the Brewers, however, were just getting revved up.

While Paul and Bachmann might have similar polling numbers to Perry and Romney, they are at or near their ceiling. Perry and Romney, however, are just getting started. And if the latest round of Rasmussen numbers are to be believed, Perry has already accelerated past the rest of the field.


Paul and Bachmann both knocked out T-Paw. After all, they were in a virtual tie for first place, with Bachmann winning by less than 9/10 of one percent of the vote.

Paul has a path for the nomination, however long and possibily dubious. One thing for sure is this: Paul has been shown in national polls to have a better chance than Bachmann would in defeating Obama in a general election. That alone makes Ron Paul a VERY newsworthy candidate. If you continue to ignore Ron Paul, you will do so at the risk of your credibility as journalists and a news outlet. People are catching on. It seems like one of the biggest political news stories this week is how the media has been unfairly ignoring Ron Paul.

Contrary to the smug, self-serving thrust of this writer's story, here is the reality that the mainstream media wants to distort and cover up with lies, ommissions, and evasions concerning Ron Paul's true electability as president:

Millions of grassroots Americans from all political parties, all walks of life and backgrounds, have recognized that twelve term Congressman Ron Paul is the only viable presidential candidate seriously addressing the crucial linkage between both our unsustainable military presence of 900 overseas bases in 130 countries (and five ongoing undeclared wars), and our unsustainable entitlement system built upon shifting fiscal sand and massive deficit spending.

This fraudulent welfare-warfare state, enabled by covert monetary manipulation by the Federal Reserve, is bankrupting the American people.

These millions of grassroots Americans have discovered these disturbing facts and fear for the future and the security of their families. They recognize that the same status quo banalities voiced by the same status quo establishment hacks will provide no solutions to America's problems.

We have a national debt approaching fifteen trillion dollars, with outstanding future obligations of $104, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Service and Veterans benefits, etc.

America is a constitutional republic, not an empire.

We are not the policeman of the world.

It is time to end the empire, end the wars, and bring the troops home.

It is time for strategic disengagement and nonintervention in the internal affairs of other nations.

It is time to restore peace, prosperity, freedom, and true economic security to America's families.

It is time for Ron Paul 2012.

So you're making the argument that he isn't being talked about now simply because in 14 months, he will no longer be a factor.

Glad you can predict the future.

As you know, his supporters (myself included), will do everything in our power to prove you wrong.

I have noticed many Democrats that say they're interested only in Paul as the GOP nominee because of his consistent record, and his notable past in the military and as a doctor. People that would never even look at the GOP are giving only Paul a chance to run against their favorite: Obama. All the other Republican candidates aren't believably honest and open. Cigarette tax portion of the Iowa debate? Two of the candidates regretted their own votes on that.
Paul is not that out there. He can appeal to more than a few hardcore followers. Both sides have love towards him with many issues (anti-war, fiscal responsibility, and live and let live policies). One thing he really has a chance with is apathetic and non-voters.

I voted for Gore in 2000. I refused to vote in 2004. In 2007 I was re-energized by Paul's refreshing honesty and voted for him in the primaries, but when he dropped out I didn't vote in the November election because Obama has ties with Rezko, and (living in IL) I hate Chicago style politics. To corrupt. In 2012 I'm voting Paul. I think everybody likes a little bit of Paul in one way or another.

So here it is.

He won't win because he did terrible in 2008. For that reason, we will turn a blind eye to him now regardless of how well he is doing.

That is why he's on ignore. No, it's not unfair.

Good story, sir.


Yea, the political mainstream serves this country so well. It is people like you Zorn who have closed off your mind to the real leaders who can save this country from itself.

Stay with the false choices the 1%ers select for you. Think that you actually have a choice here? I feel sorry for you Zorn, you've just demonstrated how well the media machine works.

Ron Paul won't win because he is an angry man. Who wants that? He has a place in politics but it isn't as President.

I'm not a Paul supporter—a trawl through the comment archives here will show that I'm pretty solidly progressive/green/socialist—but here's my rational response anyway: he can't be written off as "unelectable" because it's August. Of 2011. And while his may not be a household name generally, he has name recognition among Republicans (who will be voting in primaries and caucuses) and a steady and increasing support. Given the current ground conditions, I think that increase is probably too slow to make it to the top, but it's a wide race, the winner could come in with as little as 25 or 30% of the primary vote, and it'll take just one or two surprise events—in, as I said, fully a half year until the first tier of primaries—to put him in pole (poll?) position. The more-or-less libertarian mindset has stronger public support right now than I've seen in my lifetime, and he's just about the ur-libertarian. His only significant divergence from begin a straight-ticket libertarian, in fact, is opposition to abortion, which aligns him even better with the Tea Party crowd.

So, quite aside from arguments about why he *ought to* win, there are enough arguments for why he *might* win that the media blackout does a real disservice to readers, and indeed to the goals of democracy. And I'll also say that I do appreciate his basic intellectual honesty, and the media could do worse than to reward with coverage the candidates who actually don't blatantly and repeatedly lie to them, as several of the other candidates (most notably Michele Bachmann) have been known to do.

ZORN REPLY -- There's a libertarian streak in many on the right and the left, but most of us are, at best, cafeteria libertarians. I simply don't think there's a large enough constituency out there for a prix fixe libertarian who mixes the "get government out of my life" sentiment with the "I would not have supported the Civil Rights act" sentiment. Add in a number of Paul's other, um, unorthodox/unpopular views and you have a guy who has fairly low ceiling.
That's why I don't credit your view that there are "enough arguments for why he *might* win" -- I just don't see those argument as a matter of analysis.

At the end, most people vote for people, not ideas. RP doesn't seem have enough charisma and presence. The media is not drawn to him because the media is rarely drawn to ideas, and they don't sense a personality draw.

@Boris - Good points and unfortunately I agree with you.

@blahedo - Actually, I think his biggest departure from the libertarian philosophy is his position on restricting immigration. He hasn't been perfect on the issue but he's far, far from the libertarian open-borders position; and he's well to the right of any modern president and even most of the current GOP candidates. Regarding abortion, libertarians believe in protecting innocent life and the rights of third parties. I'm not aware of any definitive libertarian statement on when life begins.

No, Salon, Ron Paul got 10% in Iowa last time DESPITE being treated in the same dismissive manner that you're treating him this time around!

Don't act like you gave him a fair shot and it didn't pan out.

That's just a lie and you know it.


You can spin it all you want but this is the truth. And as for the huge fraud that bach pulled off with the straw pole.


We know what you are zorn and we all know Paul has a damn good chance.

--"I like Ron Paul, but he can't win and so I won't waste my support/vote on him" - is the reason I hear most often from those that know who Ron Paul is. If these people would ignore the media brainwashing that says he can't win, he'd be an even bigger front runner in this campaign.

Zorn - you are on notice. We are sick and tired of you and your ilk defining who will be elected. Ron Paul is not the sexiest candidate in the race, the best speaker or the best for ratings (although he did wonders for the comment space on your rarely visited blog). He is the vessel that those of us that are fed up with the wars, the abuses of civil liberties, the endless corporate welfare and endless spending, the inflation and the lies. We are done with the establishment.

ZORN REPLY -- My ilk and I are grateful for the traffic, but, in fact, this blog gets many thousands of visitors even on the slowest days.

This will clear it all up for those who are on the fence. This from a prime time REAL journalist and not an establishtment cheerleader like zorn.


sounds like a biased paper written by someone clearly illiterate. fact: both fox and cnn are known for their snotty remarks just about every time ron paul is mentioned. and really people? trusting the chicaco tribune of all mainstream media?! you should be ashamed!

Having gone through the dozens of comments from the Ron Paul supporters, I find them to a strange group. Calling someone like Eric Zorn Illiterate? On something obviously an opinion blog saying that Eric Zorn is a reporter? Yes he reports but he comments as well. They obviouisly do not know this site and will blurt out all kinds of nonsense.

Another hit piece against Ron Paul. Michelle Bachman congratulated Elvis Presley on his birthday yesterday, Eric. He was born January 8th. He died August 16th. Ron Paul, at his age, has arguably more brains in his pinky finger than Presidential candidate Bachman. Why don't you talk about the 4,000 straws she reportedly paid for? Or the potential electioneering charges that mainstream networks which receive public airtime may face by ignoring a Presidential candidate like armed services veteran, doctor, and 12-term Congressman Paul. Right... Dr. Paul, who chairs the House Select Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. Voters are starting to realize that Mr. Paul isn't unelectable at all. Continuing to pay attention to mainstream media predictions about candidates is becoming untenable, because their positions are compromised. Whether he is electable or not - the duty of the journalist is to report the news. This is the kind of news that our armed forces have died to protect, Eric. We deserve better than this. And a man as old and as respectable as Representative Paul deserves a little better than to be written off.

Let's talk about the real reason Doctor Paul's being ignored by the MSM, Eric. He's not accepting PAC donations. He leads the largest grassroots movement in the history of the United States. And if he became President, there would not be a single lobbying group or multinational corporation like News Corp. allowed 500 yards near him. Every American soldier would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we'd be talking about ways to work to liquidate our debt and balance our budget. The office of the President wouldn't be a big shiny CEO chair for the highest bidder. It wouldn't be on sale at Sotheby's. Get honest with voters. We don't care if you or other pundits think he's not electable. We want the news covered. We want him and all other candidates interviewed when they achieve a campaign milestone, whether Republican or Democrat, and we want fair elections.

If we can't achieve that in the United States, even you must know what that means, Eric. It means after 10 years of war, we lost our republic to corruption and an institutionalized warfare state.

If the mainstream media continues to pick and choose candidates, but particularly, chooses to ignore Mr. Paul, who has millions of supporters around the nation, there should be a serious, bi-partisan investigation involving the Federal Election Commission and the FCC into the practices of Rupert Murdoch, Jeffrey Immelt, Chase Carey, and Ken Jaultz to name a few. You want to determine the outcome of a US election? You want to write off candidates, pretend they didn't get second place in a debate, and claim they are unelectable? The American people, once alert, don't like to be manipulated. And I guarantee you - continue to pigeon hole this guy and heads are going to role en mass when people start writing their Congressmen, selling stock in our yellow papers, and moving onto more reputable news organizations (i.e. individual blogs at this point).

The media just got caught doing what they do best - blowing steam up everyone's ass. Just red handed this time around.

Remember, these are the same news organizations that intentionally create a fear state - constantly reporting on crime as though it is happening everywhere and at all times. They reported on a killer bee infestation that was supposed to enter through Mexico from Africa and plague everyone by the millions. They regularly report about how the escalator is dangerous because it can eat you. They report on things that can happen, statistically, less often than winning the lottery twice, as if they are a real threat to your safety. And when the government used psychological tactics to scare us to death with color-coded terror threat levels, they were there to enforce that propaganda. They beat the drums of war for Iraq and looked the other way when we struck Libya and continued to occupy foreign soil. This is the quality of broadcasting. And today, as of August 2011, they are intentionally choosing not to tell us who won 2nd places in the Amnes, Iowa Republican Straw Poll, or even interview the man. Because he's unelectable.

Ron Paul is not Pro Israel enough. Because of that, he is ignored and encouraged to be ignored by the zionist controlled media. Its a conspiracy none the less.

Thanks, joe, you win the prize! Of course it's a zionist controlled media conspiracy!

Boris has the essence of why Ron Paul is not on top of the news about candidates.

I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 because I thought he was the right person at the right time. I am guessing that I was probably of the same mind set and age as most of the Ron Paul supporters who posted yesterday to Eric's blog.


This is classic!! Someone who can't 1) spell correctly 2) capitalize correctly 3) punctuate correctly; 4) write a complete sentence or 5) express a coherent thought calling someone else illiterate. You can't make this stuff up!

After reading this article and still having and open mind for all of the candidates and until I have thoroughly digested what "THEY" stand for and not what you want me to believe I agree with most of the responses to your article. I also think that your pretty chicken for not responding to the articles that make valid points rather then the ones that dont. Will definitely make a note to ignore your articles from now on due to the fact that you are clearly bias instead of being objective

Just another biased op-ed being peddled as "news". Nothing to read of any value here folks, move along.

This is a pretty worthless article isn't Eric?

You title it "Why the Media Ignore Ron Paul" and then use stats from 2008 to support your opinion. The entire problem with this logic is that the media were ignoring Ron Paul in 2008 as well. He was practically black-balled and ridiculed during televised debates. You can use stats all you want to justify your opinion, but it's really all about fitting the media narrative. In 2008, and again for 2012.

Oh, and it just makes you that much more likable to come out in reply and scorn RP followers with the whole "every time I write about Paul, the supporters quickly assemble in ignorant defiance, but can't formulate a logical well thought out reply" Yes, we're all just sooo stupid and childish aren't we? That argument never gets old does it? It's all part of the narrative. Crazy Ron and his even crazier supporters.

It's apparent that you are simply trying to cash in on the media blackout coverage of RP in Iowa this week with this piece of trash, and while you point and laugh at the RP supporters, the ad traffic just keeps ringing in. Nothing would make your boss happier then to keep the page views pouring in, right?

This is what the news outlets, all too often, are really about. Manufacturing the narrative, playing for and against it until it no longer bleeds, and cashing in on all the ad revenue created from the traffic. There is no real news here. Just the opinion of a man paid to generate ad sales. In that respect...good job Eric. Everyone else should look elsewhere for intelligent political commentary.

And who appointed you self proclaimed gatekeeper of who can and cant win? This is exactly why people are tuning rags like yours out and looking for their news via alternative outlets. You say you don't focus on him because his ideas are outside of the mainstream, yet you have no problem with wall to wall coverage of bat-poop crazy nutjobs like Palin. Nice try. I have never ever bought an edition of a Chicago tribute paper, or ever visited your website before until now, and guess what- I never will again exactly because of reasons like this.

ZORN REPLY -- It seems like a wise move if you wish to avoid opinions that differ from your own. By the way, the person who appointed me gatekeeper of who can and can't win is the same person who appointed you judge of bat-poop craziness.

--It seems to me, all Zorn did was start a discussion of why RP is not getting media traction. He expressed his opinion. Others expressed theirs. So why so much anger and outright ugliness directed at him? I rarely agree with Kip politically (I am a libertarian), but to add to his list of ironies: some of the RP followers are displaying total lack of civility, benevolence, respect, straight thinking and reason, the very characteristics RP is praised for. I hope it is not a representative sample.


(Note: Not a Tea Partier or Ron Paul supporter.)

The problem with his lack of media coverage is that it's the same old process, which many people are tired of. They're tired of a two-party system where each side grows further apart from the other; they're tired of candidates with glaring flaws, unimpressive records, or who abandoned their campaign promises; and they're tired of the media following only the top 2-3 candidates. Right now, the race is only Obama, Romney, and Bachmann. Can you see our frustration, and why many might be asking for more coverage of a Ron Paul?

Instead of blogging about a Jon Stewart show and discounting Ron Paul, why not comment about Paul's "intriguing ideas"? Comment about other candidates' ideas - maybe they're worthy of discussion and debate. I don't see you changing your stance or yoru approach to this blog. This seems more to do with "what sells", as you made that clear reference in our of your replies above. Again, therein lies part of the problem.

Congratulations, Mr. Zorn. You're 'he can't win so why bother' quote has made Fark.com. If you're going to assume beforehand that Ron Paul won't win, then why cover the Republicans at all, since none of them are consistently polling well against Mr. Obama, especially since the 'debt ceiling' debacle? The fact is that when Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination, he was pegged as a fringe candidate as well--obviously that did not turn out well for media prognosticators. The latest national CNN/Gallup poll (http://tinyurl.com/3l473qd) has Dr. Paul tied with Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani (%12) and far ahead of Michele Bachmann (7%), Gingrich (5%) Cain and Santorum (2%). Excluding Palin and Giuliani (who have not filed to run) this puts Rep. Paul in third place behind Romney and Gov. Rick Perry, and far ahead of empirically 'fringe' candidates that have garnered far and away more attention than Rep. Paul.

Together with the CPAC straw poll (which Paul won) and the Ames poll (in which he narrowly came in 2nd) this clearly undermines the narrative you want your readers to believe. At what point will you admit you're fighting actual empirical data? Your column is a prime example of Stewart's legitimate complaint---rather than discuss Paul's ideas on their own merit, you mention Paul here solely to reassure that you don't have to mention him at all. By the numbers, every argument you make about Paul is more correct regarding someone like Santorum or Bachmann--so why talk about them at all in preference to Paul?

You are doing to Rep. Paul what media critics did to Senator Obama in 2008, and it undermines your analytic credibility in the eyes of your audience.

ZORN REPLY -- I established my analytic bona fides in 2005 by being the first columnist anywhere to predict Obama's presidential run. I will hang onto them after Paul fades quickly in the GOP primary process.

Being a fellow Texan, I love this. Down with perry and up with Paul!


Why won't anyone discuss Ron Paul's negative ratings with Republican primary voters.

In 2007, 61% of the N.H. Republicans polled by CNN would not vote for Ron Paul UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. http://goo.gl/tr29c

Has this number moved -- or is he still a Republican candidate that most Republican voters would never support?

-- MrJM

All the naysayers obviously do not support our great Constitution. Just listen to this great man speak.



Poll: Is Ron Paul Being Ignored by the Media? The Whole World Knows It!


"he's too far out of the political/ideological mainstream to be elected".

That sounds like just the candidate we need. It is the political/ideological mainstream that make people choose for something else. Maybe you media should finally get the message.This is America. A free country where every citizen has a chance to become president. It is you that shame America for what it is.

Since you work for a dying industry I guess we should dismiss you as you dismiss Dr Paul.
And by the way....I never heard of you before seeing your name on the Paul story. And fortunately I won't have to see your name again.
But hey your comments are typical of someone working as a shill for the that dying Chicago paper.

--There is no question that RP is being ignored by the Media. The question Zorn raised was Why. Ideas aside, "Ron Paul Speaks.." video via the link above shows a nice well-spoken guy who everyone would love to have as an uncle. But, regardless of whether he actually has it or not, does he project strength and intangible leadership qualities people instinctively flock to? Can he be elected? Of course. Are his chances good? No. He would need help from events, nothing that anyone would wish to happen, such as a military disaster that turns people's attention to his anti-war message. The fact that the media ignores him is in part a reflection on the anti-intellectual nature of the media and in part a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Eric, what does it mean when "--" appears in front of a post? Is it like I am getting downgraded by two points :-)?

ZORN REPLY -- Posts show up on my screen from most recent to least recent. I mark the first one I read so I know when I'm caught up the next time I go back in to monitor the posts. There ought to be another way, but our blog platform is very 20th century.

--Let's compute your rating here You received 81 comments in a 24 hour period on this piece and not one person agrees with you. You are now at 0% approval rating. Unless you can get 5 people to agree with you before the next 24 hours is up, we will have to declare you not eligible and you will not be considered a viable journalist and will therefore not be given any chance of making the top tier of journalism.

ZORN REPLY -- If you read closely, you will find that, yes, some of the commenters do agree with me. And no one has ever denied the depth and industry of Ron Paul's hardy band of supporters. Some RP bulletin board posted an email address of mine that I rarely use, and, what do you know, fistfuls of "oh, you are so wrong, you had no credibility..." letters. Maybe I'll respond on the Wednesday after Super Tuesday with the same level of class.

I'm not buying what you're selling anymore.

Every single candidate, other than Ron Paul, is already owned by special interest, corrupt, or otherwise unacceptable.

What you fail to realize is that disenchanted and disgruntled Democrats & Independents will never cross over for a Theocrat Neo-Con. But they will for Ron Paul, and they are.

Your lies don't work on me anymore. The man behind the curtain has been exposed, the cat's out of the bag - all trust of mainstream media is gone.

Ron Paul's base is growing exponentially - and there's a year to go. He's a frontrunner. Deal with it.

Thank you. I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but after reading your article. I've completely changed my mind on wanting sound money, and a Constitutional Republic.

Whew! I almost voted for a Statesman! Thank Eric for providing me with the status quo choices!

I hope you're picking up on the sarcasm, because I'm laying it on pretty thick...


If Paul quadruples his 2008 delegate count of 35 at the RNC convention a year from now in Tampa, he will have acquired just a bit more than HALF of the 271 Romney got that same year to finish in THIRD place.
As for the Ames poll? LOL! You think that's reflective of the right wing nationwide?? Bachmann's people apparently were more adept at buying votes by handing-out $30 tickets than Paul's were.
Wow. It just occurred to me that one wackadoo finished behind another wackadoo.

--I KNOW that RON PAUL is sweeping the nation and media is afraid.....VERY AFRAID. I went on a FOX LIVE poll the other day were you could interact with every city and every state. Within hours, Ron Paul had almost 30,000 votes followed by Mitt Romney. The others weren't worth mentioning. I was so estatic I sent a link to all my friends so they could vote and see who was in the lead. But FOX deleted the poll! WHAT WERE THEY AFRAID OF?? Ron Paul Sweeps the nation?? There will be a revolution! Ron Paul is much bigger than any of you can imagine and downplaying his popularity will just make him BIGGER!!

ZORN REPLY -- I'm not afraid. A strong Ron Paul candidacy would be column gold for me and my brothers and sisters in commentary. I'm just skeptical. But since you won that click poll,hmmm...

By the way, this conversation continues on page two of this thread. Click here: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/08/why-the-media-ignore-ron-paul/comments/page/2/#comments

The comments to this entry are closed.

More about Eric Zorn


•  Transition time
•  Open Thread: The Weeks In Review
•  Fine lines final four
•  Two takes on medical tokes
•  Missed it by that much
•  16 is the new 21
•  Fine lines


• `The Office'
• American Idol
• Anthony Porter Case
• Blago trial
• Books
• Chicken!
• Commenters
• Common Sense Caucus
• Current Affairs
• Film
• Fine Expressions
• Fine Shots
• Food and Drink
• Friday Night Lights
• Grey's Anatomy
• How Long Does it Take?
• Jessica Reynolds
• Mad Men
• Megan Crepeau
• Month in Review
• Obama
• Peterson case
• Predictions
• Prickly Pair Podcasts
• Race to the Slop
• Religion
• Rhubarb Patch
• Rules for commenting
• Somebody Nobody Asked
• Speaking of Sports
• Spit takes
• Sports
• Television
• The Killing
• This I No Longer Believe
• Trayvon Martin case
• Video Commentaries
• Webliographies
• Weeks in Review
• YaGotta

July 2014 posts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Browse archives

Chicago Tribune Media Group