Preface: Liberals shouldn’t ignore the media’s censoring of Ron Paul’s popularity in straw polls because he’s “on the right”. Many progressive candidates have been shut out of political races by the big corporate media.
CNN and Politico admit that the mainstream media is in the business of picking candidates:
The big media simply delete Ron Paul from their polls, even though Paul scored very highly in the Ames Iowa straw poll – and virtually every poll taken recently.
Indeed, CNN noted in May that Paul had the best chance of any Republican of beating Obama.
The pundits claim they are only censoring candidates who are “not electable”. But just as “not politically feasible” is code for “the powers-that-be don’t want it”, “not electable” simply means that the candidate would champion the interests of the little guy, and challenge the powers-that-be: the large defense contractors, the giant banks, big pharma or the mega-energy producers.
As Kara Miller notes, the media won’t cover Ron Paul:
because he doesn’t fit the media narrative. He’s anti-war and pro-small government …. Heavily influenced by each other, media outlets have sidelined Paul and embraced Bachmann ….
In fact, the corporate media have long been presstitutes for the rich and powerful, and knee-jerk in supporters of all wars.
They have always shut out candidates from either the left or right who challenge America’s imperial wars, America’s imbalanced policy towards Israel, the perpetual bailouts of the giant banks, Federal Reserve policy, or the inherent right of big corporations to do get all of the benefits of corporate personhood, without any of the responsibilities of being a person.
The corporate media is owned by a handful of giant defense contractors. As I’ve previously noted:
The government has allowed tremendous consolidation in ownership of the airwaves during the past decade.
Dan Rather has slammed media consolidation:
Likening media consolidation to that of the banking industry, Rather claimed that “roughly 80 percent” of the media is controlled by no more than six, and possibly as few as four, corporations.
This is documented by the following must-see charts prepared by:
And check out this list of interlocking directorates of big media companies from Fairness and Accuracy in Media, and this resource from the Columbia Journalism Review to research a particular company.
This image gives a sense of the decline in diversity in media ownership over the last couple of decades:
These handful of giant corporations wield enormous power. Just think Rupert Murdoch.
The last thing they want is a candidate who will shake things up.
The people’s wishes? They are wholly irrelevant to these media behemoths. Indeed, these big companies have a vested interest in picking candidates who are good at acting like they care about the little guy, but who actually couldn’t care less about the average American, and have no problem picking his pocket at the first opportunity.