The Republican primary season has begun to heat up, with Gingrich and Romney squaring off, and with it has come a media blitz covering the usual suspects: Gingrich’s affairs, Romney’s taxes, and whether or not Santorum will drop out of the race if he doesn’t win another primary (which, judging by the polls, he probably won’t.) What IS odd, however, is the lack of coverage for a specific candidate: Ron Paul. Not Ron Paul the crazy “unelectable” libertarian candidate either – Ron Paul, the candidate who lost to front -runner Mitt Romney in Iowa by 3,769 votes. Ron Paul, the candidate who placed second (SECOND) in the New Hampshire primary, beating Newt Gingrich by a 2:1 margin. And Ron Paul, who has already started to buy ad space in Nevada and Minnesota, states that hold their primaries next month in February.
Statistics Don’t Lie
However, if you were listening to the media (liberal or conservative) you might not know any of this; the media has treated Ron Paul as either invisible or insignificant. Last October, the non-profit Project for Excellence in Journalism published a report showing that Ron Paul received the lowest media support in volume than did any other Republican candidate, receiving only 2% of media coverage. In November, during a one-hour debate sponsored by CBS and the National Journal, Ron Paul only received 90 seconds to respond. Naturally with his rise in the polls those numbers have gotten better, but not by much. Between January 9-15, Ron Paul received 14% of media coverage, compared to Gingrich’s 25% and Romney’s astounding 69%. In fact, Jon Huntsman (who finished third in New Hampshire and who has since dropped out of the race) actually received 13% of the coverage to Paul’s 14%. At a recent GOP debate, moderator John King ignored Ron Paul twice, on two issues very much related to his years spent being a doctor. The issue of media blackout has become so obvious that politician comedian Jon Stewart devoted a segment of his show to the issue in August. (You can watch the clip here: http://gawker.com/5831167/jon-stewart-why-is-the-media-ignoring-ron-paul).
The reasons: A self-inflicted wound?
What are the reasons to neglect not some crazy ideologist, but a twelve-term congressman and veteran who has already outlasted the likes of Cain, Perry, and Huntsman? It could be because he has run twice before; this is Ron Paul’s third time running for president – once as a libertarian candidate in 1988 and again in 2008. However, this is Paul’s best political showing thus far. Could it be issues of electability? Jon Huntsman referred to Paul as “unelectable,” and some of the issues he campaigns for (for example, going back to a gold standard and ending the Federal Reserve) are often seen as unorthodox or even radical in a progressive-leaning American society. But could it be Ron Paul himself? Ron Paul, who is 76, routinely takes-day long breaks from the campaign. In fact, Paul is spending an unusually large amount of time away from South Carolina, focusing his time and energy not on Florida, but on smaller states like Nevada and Minnesota that have a strong tea party showing. Many actually doubt Ron Paul wants to POTUS at all; rather, his campaign seems more focused on picking up enough delegates to influence the party platform.
Mr. Paul’s actual reasons for running aside, the media cannot ignore him for much longer, especially if he has a strong showing in smaller, western states (states considered crucial to Obama’s campaign in 2008).