The Liberal Media Ignores and (or Misrepresents) Ron Paul's Views on Iraq and Civil Liberties

by Liberty and Power

Media bias was on ample display in last night's post debate shows. Only this time, the victim of bias was actually a candidate who took positions that most liberals claim to share.

Ron Paul firmly and repeatedly attacked the war on Iraq and called for withdrawal. He closed by blasting Bush's record on civil liberties and pledging to defend habeas corpus if elected. The post-debate spin shows, however, either completely ignored what he said or, worse, lumped him in with all the rest.

Although Paul came out like Gang Busters against a pardon of Scooter Libby, and even criticized Libby's role in deceiving us into war, Chris Matthews had the gall to lament that nobody had taken this position. The last few seconds of the segment brought a slight improvement when Keith Olbermann awkwardly announced that Paul had won MSNBC's online poll as the best debater....but, of course, time was up and nothing more could be said.

Later that night, CNN's post-debate spin segment sunk to an even greater low. The panel included Arianna Huffington and some neo-con guy from The Weekly Standard. Nobody mentioned Paul's views. The ever insufferable Huffington, who either did not watch the debate or lied about what she saw, self-righteously proclaimed that all of the ten candidates supported the war. Nobody challenged her. Are we to be spared nothing?

The prime movers in the media obviously dislike pro-war conservatives. Unfortunately, they have an even greater dislike of antiwar libertarians.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Holden McAllister - 5/10/2007

Brit Hume once referred to Ron Paul as a "bit of a crank" on his news broadcast. Given his opinion of Paul, and Fox's abandonment of anything and anyone libertarian, I don't expect Hume to treat Paul well at all.

Less Antman - 5/9/2007

Newshour's sponsors include Archer Daniels Midland and Boeing, which are about as ugly as corporatism gets. I think it is just that the original and current hosts of Newshour and Washington Week have developed a culture of integrity in their organizations that has strongly influenced the reporters who appear on their programs.

David T. Beito - 5/7/2007

I'm not sure I completely agree. Your explanation would make sense if Paul had been treated this way by Britt Hume or Bill O'Reilly.

However, both Matthews and Olbermann, unlike O'Reilly or Hume, have repeatedly hammered Bush on the war, civil liberties, and Scooter Libby.....yet they seemed only contemptuous of the only candidate on the stage who agreed with them on these issues. Most of it, I think, came ultimately came down to their own biases against against giving antiwar libertarians any exposure. It didn't fit in with their cardboard stereotype of pro-limited government Republicans.

David T. Beito - 5/7/2007

I think part of the reason is that PBS news is less centered on all-powerful hosts, such as Matthews and Olbermann, who can shut down debate with a snap of their fingers. I used to rather like watching Matthews and Olbermann before this (at least compared to the pro-war competition on FOX) but no more.

Perhaps Britt Hume will give Paul a fairer shake. He couldn't do any worse! Of course, the ultimate test for that will be the FOX debate.

Anthony Gregory - 5/7/2007

Less, isn't it sad how the socialist media is sometimes so much more favorable toward liberty than the corporatist media?

Gus diZerega - 5/5/2007

The reason the media dumbs things down is not so much ideological as it is econmomic. The modern corporate media is focused on us as consumers not as citizens. Anna Nicole Smith and her sad life or the Missing White Woman of the Week have much more appeal to consumers than discussions of complex public policy issues. The ratings will be higher and so will the ad revenues, which is what it is about.

By the way, Media Matters has an interesting run down on the global warming experts on Glenn beck's show that attacked the whole idea of doing anything about it.

see http://mediamatters.org/items/200705040001

Less Antman - 5/5/2007

Both the Newshour and Washington Week programs on Friday covered Paul in their discussion of the debate. Newshour included a clip of him taking the non-interventionist position and Washington Week mentioned that he was the only candidate in the debate who was not reluctant to completely separate himself from the current administration. Paul was also described as a libertarian.

PBS has long been a standout among traditional media for solid reporting, and is the only MSM I regularly follow.

jameson penn - 5/5/2007

I'm confused. Isn't the general complaint with politics that issues are overly simplified into matters of black and white?

Then why is it hip to be a moderate Democrat, but not Republican? Frankly, you don't get any more moderate than libertarian. How am I misinterpreting Ron Paul's political capital?

And how is it Chris Matthews can get away with uttering "Oh God" when Paul mentioned "original intent"? How is that an objective gesture?

Tim Sydney - 5/5/2007

The mainstream media have an interest in dumbing down all issues into simple two contestant tag team matches. All issues get recast along these overly simplified lines. It happens for the war, greenhouse, law&order etc. Paul may be the victim of this communications bias of the media rather than a left liberal per se.

Of course lefties have no interest in highlighting conservative or right wing opposition to the war, except insofar as it can be used to paint the Bush administration as "being so bad even their own supporters are chaffing".

Bill Woolsey - 5/4/2007

The Washington Post headline said that all the candidates supported the war. However, below the fold in the article, they mentioned that Paul was the lone dissenter.

Bad headline!

Maybe Paul could be a bit simpler and clearer, but I thought it was clear enough.