Dear Ron Paul Supporters Who Are Flooding My Inbox Today:

The best way to lose any credibility in pitching a story—or in your case, more coverage of your preferred candidate—is to suggest conspiratorially that your story is being censored, “blacked out” (whatever that means), or intentionally ignored by the media at large because you are not seeing the coverage you want. I don’t know who told you this was a good idea. You’re telling me that I’m not doing my job while telegraphing the fact that you don’t have a clue what that job is. (Hint: it’s not to promote losing candidates on the basis that they wouldn’t be losing if we were writing about them.)

If your candidate is being under-covered—and I’d wager that he’s isn’t—it’s because every objective indicator suggests that at this point in the race he doesn’t have an ice cube’s chance in hell at winning the Republican nomination. He’s getting less coverage right now for the same reason that Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann and all of the other candidates who seemed like possibilities at the beginning of the race are also getting less coverage. If your candidate manages to make an out-of-nowhere comeback, you’ll see more coverage.

And for those of you who have pointed out that more media coverage would facilitate more awareness of Ron Paul, that’s true, but facilitating awareness of your extremely-unlikely prospective nominee is not the job of any news organization. You completely misunderstand the objectives of journalism. Making Ron Paul more visible is the job of Mr. Paul’s fundraisers, campaign managers and marketing people. If you think he’s not getting enough visibility, complain to them, not me.

In return for that consideration, I will restrain myself from signing you up for the Marxist Internet Archive mailing list. Okay?

  1. pag-asaharibon reblogged this from spiers
  2. spiers posted this