Major Networks Promote Conspiracy Claims

Fox makes no bones about promoting a conservative agenda and for that reason people who are conservative at least usually don't take issue for the way they spin the issues. But when it comes to Dr. Paul a man who has tirelessly promoted conservative values Fox has lost much of its credibility . First by spreading lies about how a handful of his supporters were spamming their polls. Now they have completely subverted the democratic process by not allowing him to participate in their forum.

The major networks have also helped to promote conspiracy claims of media bias but in more subtle ways. For instance any time they promote stories about the candidates they will show all the faces of the Republicans but not Ron Paul. They didn't do a piece on Paul for Nightline even though there are so many interesting aspects to his campaign from the huge money bombs, the blimp, the grass roots support. I cant find anything on google or youtube for this. He got some decent coverage after the november money bombs on some of the morning shows and such but then after the 16th of December it seems like they were suddenly afraid to run Ron Paul stories. The stories are still interesting and news worthy. There have been some small pieces but not nearly what one would expect. Ron Paul is strong among people who have heard about him but the internet only reaches so many people. Allowing Paul to be on Tim Russert and in the debates is a good start but one has to wonder how Paul would be doing if he got near as much coverage as the others and if they weren't constantly making the point that he's a longshot. This ofcourse is a phycological device used to constantly promote the idea that a vote for Paul is a throw away vote.

Again I want to thank ABC for allowing Paul to take part in the debates but the following are some of the ways that subtle media bias works against Paul. These are examples from the January 5th debates.
ABC didn't note the percentage of votes for Paul and Guiliani only the front runners in Iowa.
The discussion between Diane Sawyer and Stephanopolis mentioned Richardson several times but didn't mention Paul despite the fact that he is even lower in the polls than Paul.
Outside when ABC showed supporter signs they quickly panned the cameras away from all the Ron Paul signs to show the Hillary signs.
They had correspondants after the Republican debate to help clarify and defend the positions taken by some of the candidates but not Paul.

These subtle types of media bias are done all the time by the major networks and play a large part in promoting some candidates over others. Its impossible to know how much of this is done on purpose or who makes such decisions but I like to point it out because over time on a daily basis it plays a very important part in promoting the viability or non viability of a candidate without actually having to say anything. These subtle cues register with the people who support Paul or other non establishment candidates and help spread the idea of network conspiracy.