In 20 years of writing and lecturing about gender I have never endorsed a political candidate or party at any level of government here or abroad. If an organizational structure is fundamentally unsound, there is nothing that can be done within it to make it sound, healthy, or viable. My thinking has not changed concerning this matter; nevertheless, I will make comments concerning the political field for the forthcoming presidential elections as it relates to the control of the media and its manipulation of public opinion.
In my previous essay titled Herman Cain and Media Gossip I indicated that the world financial interests controlling the media used gossip to destroy the masculine influence in society. This essay will show the influence of the media in determining who runs for the office of President of the United States. To those in other nations who subscribe to this website you will find that the media in your country also has a manipulative and often subtle influence in the political sphere.
Republican presidential activity has produced many candidates of various abilities and persuasions although Mitt Romney has maintained his position as the frontrunner. Many have reached the number two position only to fade away as the campaign progressed. Palin, Bachman, Perry, Cain and Gingrich have all had their time in second place in the polls. This change of position is a natural occurrence as voters become aware of and then evaluate candidates and their political philosophies.
The media appears to give each candidate fair coverage within the philosophy of the program doing the reporting. However, there is one candidate who has consistently held third place in the polling, has never lost momentum, whose name is mentioned infrequently and whose picture only rarely receives publication. That name is Ron Paul, and he has been in the shadow of media political reporting for the entire year. Now that Gingrich is fading the media can no longer keep Ron Paul in the shadows, they now have to acknowledge his presence and address it.
They address it in a very negative but subtle manner as occurred on Meet the Press when David Gregory interviewed Ron Paul. On the surface it appears that Meet the Press gave Ron Paul national recognition, but closer examination will reveal that David Gregory’s questions focused on what Ron Paul thought of Romney and Gingrich. They did not focus on Ron Paul’s views. The millions of viewers who tuned in to that program knew little more about Ron Paul after the interview was over than before it started.
Nevertheless, Ron Paul’s popularity in the polls continues to increase, which required more aggressive and subtler reporting. On Hardball the panel addressed the negative effect on the Republican Party if Ron Paul developed a stronger following. Why the concern about the negative effects that Ron Paul’s ascendancy can cause within his own party? They should exhibit joy at the prospect of the republican’s rallying behind someone that would be injurious to themselves. Why not give him a lot of exposure to help him become a divisive factor in the party? Hardball, and all the political programs of MSNBC are liberal and Democrat oriented. Why this feigned compassion for their enemies?
The media ignored Ron Paul for all of 2011. Now that they have to address him they have begun to attack him. The early attacks have been subtle, but as the days pass the attacks will become more direct and vicious. Watch how the media conducts itself regarding the candidacy of Ron Paul in the time remaining before the Iowa caucuses. They are starting to mention Santorum and Huntsman as viable candidates with more frequency while digging up what dirt they can find in Paul’s past. This by the way, is more gossip and subterfuge.
Regardless of your political persuasion ask yourselves why this is so. What accounts for the fear of little 77 year-old Ron Paul by the forces that control the media?
Any comments will be published under Member Editorial.
E.G.
