John Galt's Blog

I am, therefore I'll think

John Galt

John Galt
Birthday
December 23
Bio
John Galt is not my name. That is not me in the pic. I am a frustrated American who, like the character in the Ayn Rand book, is witnessing his society crumble around him. I'm not so sure how to change things, but like John Kennedy once said: "One person can make a difference, and everyone should try"

DECEMBER 26, 2011 5:38PM

Why Do People Still Believe The Mainstream Media?

Rate: 3 Flag

I logged on to OS several days ago and found a ludicrous post by someone (whom I shall refrain from naming) claiming that Ron Paul was a racist using talking points from the media about incendiary remarks from 20-year old newsletters. This story has been floating around ever since it was revealed that Ron Paul was the frontrunner in Iowa and in a position to really do damage to the Republican establishment in the upcoming primaries. Although Ron Paul has graciously answered these claims for almost 20 years, the MSM continues to throw it out there, presumably because its the only dirt they can find on him. Raw Story (among others) reported that Ron Paul stormed out of an interview with CNN's Gloria Borger when she pressed him on the issue:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/21/ron-paul-quits-cnn-interview-after-being-asked-about-racist-newsletters/

Sounds pretty damning, doesn't it? The "neutral" CNN questions Ron Paul, he storms out, and Raw Story says "See! Look how he gets defensive! He must be a racist!"

Then I read this UK Daily Mail headline and had to chuckle:

Raw Footage Shows Ron Paul DIDN'T Storm Out of CNN Interview Over Racist Newsletters...The Interview Was Simply Done 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078343/Raw-footage-shows-Ron-Paul-DIDNT-storm-CNN-interview-racist-newsletters--interview-simply-done.html

This is one of millions of examples. The mainstream media preys on folks who don't do their homework. In Goebbels-ian fashion (I think I made up a word), the media repeats a lie long enough, and people start to believe it.

Now that doesn't mean that as a Ron Paul supporter I look away from any criticisms without investigating them myself. I've heard these stories before and have investigated them. Lets quickly review a couple, shall we?...

 The New Republic ran a story 4 years ago about this nonsense, but when the author of that hit piece was on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show, he had to admit he actually never heard Ron Paul say anything racist (go to 3:44):

I also heard about a New York Times piece several years ago claiming that Ron Paul was receiving money from white supremacist organizations, only to be forced to print a retraction, citing "several errors":

http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/ 

According to Pultizer Prize winning politifact.com, Ron Paul voted in favor of the establishment of Martin Luther King Jr. day in the 1980's. Now why would a racist vote in favor of something like this, especially since it goes against his strict constitutionalist principles, giving him the perfect excuse? What's funny is this piece seems to be trying to paint Dr. Paul in a negative light, but I think they failed:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/sep/17/ron-paul/a-few-exceptions-to-his-small-government-principle/

I have followed Ron Paul for quite some time now and have never heard him make any comments that are racist. I've also read several Ron Paul books and have never read any passages that could even be considered racist.

A long time ago I used to watch the news networks religiously and thought I was smart, so I can't blame people for the brainwashing they are subjected to on a daily basis. But if it isn't obvious to folks by now that the MSM is completely compromised, both left and right, then those who still participate in and support that sideshow must be braindead. I know, that claim sounds a little harsh, but when your government fluoridates your water for 50+ years and tells you its good for you, poisons your food with GMO, and dumbs down your education to the point where you can't add 176 + 38 without a calculator (they got me, too...it took me a while to figure out it was 214), it makes sense to me.

I didn't learn a damn thing about the world until I started to look for the answers myself. My time spent in the Matrix was about feeling good about myself at the expense of others, and the Matrix itself provided the breeding ground for those thoughts to grow.

I wish you all a happy holiday season, including the person who inspired this post (and if you're reading this, I'm sure you know who you are by now). My hope is that by pointing out obvious lies by the MSM, I can hopefully sway people to stop believing the hype and help bring the revolution of knowledge this hoodwinked nation is in such desperate need of.

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
the dailymail is a pretty wild site... it looks like tabloid journalism but you find some amazing articles there occasionally that set the record straight-- they seem to have an attention span longer than a single news cycle, which is longer than the ADD public & the MSM that encourages it.
your question, "why do people still believe the MSM"? well like you say, almost, as I have always said on here.....
humans are stupid....
Seems to me that it's disingenuous of Ron Paul to say he didn't read stuff put out under his name, which brought him revenue, and he doesn't think that way and (shrug) he doesn't know or care who wrote it. Disingenuous of his followers to think that's *okay*. "Graciously" explained over the years?

I saw that CNN interview. While Paul didn't exactly "storm out", he did declare the interview over while the interviewer was still pressing him on the matter - he took off the earpiece and walked away (for a mild-mannered guy like Paul, that might qualify as "storming out".) It didn't look like the case of an interview having coming to its natural and appointed end.

Paul simply doesn't have an adequate response to the question...or genuinely thinks it's of no consequence. In either case, he's hardly material for heading a government.

Since one can see the interview and read the exerpts for oneself, it doesn't seem a case of being unduly influenced by the MSM.
This post mixes up a number of issues. I agree with pieces of it but it's tangled in a bunch of other stuff I don't.

Does the mainstream media sometimes not give coverage to things that need covering? I think so. I think the minority candidates are where the action is in the election, asking questions that the major candidates often don't. I think new ideas come from minority positions. And the media reinforces the status quo sometimes, perhaps a lot.

But is that laziness or conspiracy? I'll prefer Hanlon's Razor on this one. (I never knew this had a name until recently and am liking that it does. It's as important as Occam's Razor in my opinion.)

Another trouble I have with this piece is illustrated in this statement: “The mainstream media preys on folks who don't do their homework.” There are two aspects to this sentence. One is the objective claim that the mainstream media contains pitfalls that people in the audience who aren't paying attention will fall into. With that I agree. The other is the subjective claim that this is intentional. The verb “prey” suggests an intention to deceive, and if there is such intention, you haven't laid an adequate foundation for showing intent.

Next, you speak of the mainstream media as if it were one thing. And I'll be the first to admit that there's a game of what I call “big fish, little fish” (small fish eaten by larger ones which in turn are eaten by larger ones) going on in modern corporations, so certainly there are fewer and fewer sources of news. But nonetheless, there are still a number of news entities and while they follow a lot of similar practices, they are not controlled (yet) from one place, so I'm troubled by the notion of speaking about this as if it were one thing. (I don't even know if we'd all agree as to what's mainstream and what's not.) I'll lean on Hanlon's razor here, too, though, and assume you aren't trying to twist anything, but rather are just not making an adequate case. Bold claims require bold proof, and just saying that this is just one of millions of examples doesn't work for me as an indictment of the mainstream media from the point of view of intent. You talk about the mainstream media as compromised, but with the specific exceptions of Fox and a few specific others, I think most media people are not regularly instructed what to show and not to show. I suspect it's more an issue of laziness and routine and a failure of imagination that leads to what makes the mainstream media less useful. That's not being compromised. That's just being anemic.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't think it's a fair question why people believe it. I think everyone should be a healthy skeptic of all kinds of things. Blog posts, too. The real problem is that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Perhaps better to just sum up that mainstream media has its faults and it's good to cross-check against different kinds of media, but that those have their faults, too, and it's best to cross-check those against other media. Perhaps “trust no one” or “verify what you can” (depending on how cynically you want to word it) are just good and healthy ways of being.

I also didn't find the suggestion that flouridation example did anything for your argument. To me, it weakens it because it seems off-topic, because the flouridation experiment seems not to have caused grievous harm, and because it's not a secret.
rawstory.com is mainstream media?
I so agree with Myriad in her comments on this issue, I will quote her post in its entirety:

Seems to me that it's disingenuous of Ron Paul to say he didn't read stuff put out under his name, which brought him revenue, and he doesn't think that way and (shrug) he doesn't know or care who wrote it. Disingenuous of his followers to think that's *okay*. "Graciously" explained over the years?

I saw that CNN interview. While Paul didn't exactly "storm out", he did declare the interview over while the interviewer was still pressing him on the matter - he took off the earpiece and walked away (for a mild-mannered guy like Paul, that might qualify as "storming out".) It didn't look like the case of an interview having coming to its natural and appointed end.

Paul simply doesn't have an adequate response to the question...or genuinely thinks it's of no consequence. In either case, he's hardly material for heading a government.

Since one can see the interview and read the exerpts for oneself, it doesn't seem a case of being unduly influenced by the MSM.


Ron Paul IS being disingenuous…and his followers are being even more disingenuous for suggesting his explanations have been adequate or okay.

I also saw the CNN interview. Gloria Borger was asking appropriate questions and appropriately pointing out the Paul’s “explanations” were not really explanations at all…and, in effect, was asking him to explain his “explanations.” He did stalk off…and Borger courteously attempted to calm him down. Even when she mentioned, courteously and reasonably, that she was doing the job she was assigned (to get an explanation), Paul acting the part of a petulant child and refused to even concede that.

Paul was inept at handling the interview…just as he has been inept at handling the issue right from the beginning. It does reflect on his qualifications to be president.
Frank, I think you make a good point. Democracy and transparency require that one of the skills of a leader be his ability to engage the public, telling taking responsibility for his actions and explaining his reasons. There's quite a bit of difference between how different Presidents will act, yet we expect all of them to answer to the press or we cannot do our jobs as citizens overseeing what is done in our name, even if he's very lax about what is done in his name.
Kent,

If you think fluoridation is harmless, then you're not paying attention. If you searched "dangers of fluroide" or something like that, you'll find all kinds of stuff that you may not have known about. You can start here:

http://naturaldentistry.us/1378/the-dangers-of-fluoride/
Frank,

i didn't see ineptitude of how Paul handled the interview. What I saw was someone answering the same question several times until he got a little annoyed. maybe we'll just agree to disagree
Thanks for writing about this, more need to know, although it's hard to imagine there is anyone left who believes what they hear on MSM is truth rather than snowjob.
I got in the habit of watching MSM news when we moved back east, so I had counter-points prepared when chatting at cocktail hours....and so I could understand where in the hell folks got their opinions!