Mainstream Media's Bias Run Amuck

For a long time, I've felt that the majority of the mainstream media outlets have had a liberal slant as is widely accepted. When I first discovered Ron Paul, one of the first thoughts I had was, "Why haven't I heard about this guy on any of the news channels?" I usually watched FOX news and sometimes MSNBC and had been following the race fairly closely for nearly a year. I remembered Ron Paul from some of the debates, but I couldn't remember much of what he'd said - only that the other candidates and moderators had dismissed him as someone who would probably feel more comfortable in the Democrat debates.

How could this man have the most conservative voting record in Congress, yet the Republicans and mainstream media had successfully convinced me and countless others that he was a kook? As I delved further into attempting to answer this question, I realized that the media has not only been biased against Dr. Paul, but has blatanly lied and omitted facts that the electorate doesn't even know they're missing. The corruption I've discovered is... well, see for yourself:

FOX News - producer tells camera man not to get Ron Paul supporters in his shots (Sept. 2007)

ABC - coverage of supporters outside the Iowa GOP Debates (August 2007)

CNN Debates - CNN's own polls after the debate included more than 30,000 voters, yet the results were never reported on CNN TV

CNN - Coverage of the first 'money-bomb'; (note there was far less coverage of the next 'money bomb' in December, which raised more than $6 million in one day)

These are just a few examples. Search for yourself on YouTube or google, and you will be absolutely amazed at how widespread the media's blackout on Ron Paul has been. As we know, the majority of Americans get their news from TV and - for the most part - believe what they see and hear. This explains the "I agree with Ron Paul on most issues, but I'm not voting for him because he can't win" syndrome.