M. Porcius Cato's Blog

I have incredibly mixed feelings about this article. They ignored quite a bit of vital information about the rationale behind his ideas and dedicated the final pages to a lot of subtle negativity.

I agree with you Moonlapse. Regarding the last bit of the article, though, Ron Paul really does attract a broad swath of non-conformists, and in my limited experience with his supporters, I've encountered both incredibly intelligent and earnest patriots as well as loony, conspiracy-theorist types (e.g., the 9/11 "truthers"). Ron Paul has a history of welcoming support from anyone, and in an article of this length, no responsible journalist could ignore the potential consequences of this fact.

Indeed. This article is obviously written for those who are unfamiliar with Ron Paul, and it does a good job of drawing attention away from the main ideas and leaving the reader with the impression that his actual campaign is not worth serious interest.

 

The author raises the question: But what is "Ron's message"? Then he completely sidesteps an actual answer and states that Ron Paul will not be the next President.

 

Actually, other media outlets could learn a lesson from the NYT. They tend to ridicule, misinform, or block coverage outright and it actually has drawn more interest to his campaign. I expect that we'll see more articles like this. Come to think of it, this is very similar to the ABC interview.

The article mentions that Paul has opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and is consistently non-interventionist, is "obsessed" with sound monetary policy, votes against farm subsidies (in a district that is heavily agricultural) and bringing home pork, and so forth. I think Paul's message is fairly clear from the article. As I like to sum up his message (with tongue in cheek): Make money, not war.

I can't argue with that. I just feel that the article is very cleverly written and although it provides good information and is the most extensive main stream article to date, using section headers like 'The Owl-God Moloch' and 'Every Wacko Fringe Group In the Country', both of which take up a little more than the last two pages, is an effort to manipulate perception.

 

The average non-critical reader will focus on this last part. Why would anyone want to be associated in any way with wacko fringe groups? Besides, he'll never be President anyways, right? The next president will have to get these wackos 'knit back together' with the regular people. It makes the assumption, on the reader's behalf, that anyone who supports Ron Paul is different from 'us'.

 

I know these seem like trivial details, but I think they are the most important aspects of journalism. It only takes a couple of words to conjure up irrational negativity.

Fair enough. But every candidate gets a little smack-down from the NYT--no one's immune.

I'll take your word for it.

 

What I'd actually like to see in an article is a close look at the consequences of his proposed policies. I think that some of his own supporters don't fully understand what would happen. Greater freedom is inseparable from greater responsibility, and there would be considerable inconveniences and struggles as our dependent society gradually adjusts.