Ron Paul WHO? - Is the Media Fair to All Candidates?
Why do you watch the news? I can practically guarantee something related to information gathering will be on your list of reasons. Especially when it comes to politics, people don’t know as much as they could, and so they rely on other sources to give them that information. Because many members of the press are familiar with the workings of government, and they are trained in communication, they are the logical choice to convey this information and enlighten the public.
But do they do this effectively?
As a student of government and an aspiring journalist, I’m very much enamored of the idea of the press as a vital force for democracy, that a strong independent press is necessary to create a public that is educated to make informed choices at the polls. Which is why it bothers me so much when I see them falling short.
To demonstrate some of what I mean by this, let’s look at Rep. Ron Paul. He’s one of several people who are running for the GOP nomination for 2012. Regardless of your views on his politics (disclaimer: I don’t agree with him on much, if anything), it’s safe to say that he deserves fair treatment by the media, a chance to get his views out there. But I’m not convinced he’s getting that.
Did you know that Paul won two Iowa polls this weekend? I certainly didn’t, until I specifically searched his name on the website of various news outlets. (That one’s CNN). Actually, I have to admit that that article is pretty fair. It’s a straight-forward reporting of the results with enough information for the reader to make sense of them.
Compare this one. It’s from the Huffington Post so it should be taken with a grain of salt, but look at what this article says. It notes that “Paul's campaign purchased a large number of tickets for the straw poll and distributed them to supporters for... half off the price.” This is an example of the media’s classic focus on the strategies of presidential races, what Jamieson and Cappella describe as “covering... issues by focusing on the tactical and strategic movements of the players.” While this is the point of the straw polls, it doesn't take into consideration the fact that to pay for even half-price tickets, the supporters must be very serious about their support for Paul. Clearly, the issue positions speak to them enough that they're willing to pay anything at all for these tickets.
And so ends the list of articles I could find about Paul’s victory. Yes, 2. Other outlets talked about an Iowa poll, too, but Cain and Romney won that one so I’m assuming it’s a different poll. One of the New York Times blogs, The Caucus, wrote an article, for instance. “Cain and Romney top” that poll, but guess who’s in third? Ron Paul. The article doesn’t flat out state that fact. It says Paul “was the only other candidate to reach double digits” in the poll, which implies a third place finish but doesn’t outright state it. And Paul is only mentioned in one sentence throughout the entire article. It’s as if he doesn’t matter in the race.
But this is kind of my point. In the minds of media elites, Paul doesn’t matter. They don’t think he has any shot of winning, so they are focusing on other candidates with a “better chance.” Even when shown that Paul isn’t out of the race. So all of this focus on the race aspect drowns out Paul’s policy positions. And as Jamieson and Capella (again) state, “without public airing, plans had no way to build popular support.” The same is true for candidates. When the media writes Paul off, they don’t report on his views, the very things he needs to convey to get support. It’s a vicious cycle and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And it’s not what the media is supposed to do in a democracy. Ron Paul might have more popularity if the media talked about his views more, but they won’t do that because of perceived low support and viability. But the media shouldn’t make judgements about which candidate has the most shot of winning. The people should decide that. It’s a disservice to everyone when certain candidates and ideas are excluded from public discourse.
But do they do this effectively?
As a student of government and an aspiring journalist, I’m very much enamored of the idea of the press as a vital force for democracy, that a strong independent press is necessary to create a public that is educated to make informed choices at the polls. Which is why it bothers me so much when I see them falling short.
To demonstrate some of what I mean by this, let’s look at Rep. Ron Paul. He’s one of several people who are running for the GOP nomination for 2012. Regardless of your views on his politics (disclaimer: I don’t agree with him on much, if anything), it’s safe to say that he deserves fair treatment by the media, a chance to get his views out there. But I’m not convinced he’s getting that.
Did you know that Paul won two Iowa polls this weekend? I certainly didn’t, until I specifically searched his name on the website of various news outlets. (That one’s CNN). Actually, I have to admit that that article is pretty fair. It’s a straight-forward reporting of the results with enough information for the reader to make sense of them.
Compare this one. It’s from the Huffington Post so it should be taken with a grain of salt, but look at what this article says. It notes that “Paul's campaign purchased a large number of tickets for the straw poll and distributed them to supporters for... half off the price.” This is an example of the media’s classic focus on the strategies of presidential races, what Jamieson and Cappella describe as “covering... issues by focusing on the tactical and strategic movements of the players.” While this is the point of the straw polls, it doesn't take into consideration the fact that to pay for even half-price tickets, the supporters must be very serious about their support for Paul. Clearly, the issue positions speak to them enough that they're willing to pay anything at all for these tickets.
And so ends the list of articles I could find about Paul’s victory. Yes, 2. Other outlets talked about an Iowa poll, too, but Cain and Romney won that one so I’m assuming it’s a different poll. One of the New York Times blogs, The Caucus, wrote an article, for instance. “Cain and Romney top” that poll, but guess who’s in third? Ron Paul. The article doesn’t flat out state that fact. It says Paul “was the only other candidate to reach double digits” in the poll, which implies a third place finish but doesn’t outright state it. And Paul is only mentioned in one sentence throughout the entire article. It’s as if he doesn’t matter in the race.
But this is kind of my point. In the minds of media elites, Paul doesn’t matter. They don’t think he has any shot of winning, so they are focusing on other candidates with a “better chance.” Even when shown that Paul isn’t out of the race. So all of this focus on the race aspect drowns out Paul’s policy positions. And as Jamieson and Capella (again) state, “without public airing, plans had no way to build popular support.” The same is true for candidates. When the media writes Paul off, they don’t report on his views, the very things he needs to convey to get support. It’s a vicious cycle and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And it’s not what the media is supposed to do in a democracy. Ron Paul might have more popularity if the media talked about his views more, but they won’t do that because of perceived low support and viability. But the media shouldn’t make judgements about which candidate has the most shot of winning. The people should decide that. It’s a disservice to everyone when certain candidates and ideas are excluded from public discourse.