Is the mainstream media biased against Ron Paul?

[Reluctant Republican]

the media is biased toward him for not exposing his ridiculous platform...

Peace, freedom and a belief in the constitution. Yes those are ridiculous ideas or at least they are to some Brits, which is why we kicked them the hell out of our country 200 years ago.

If you want socialism, tyranny and unending wars then Ron Paul is not your guy.

To be fair to Harry, I think he was talking about Paul's desire to abolish things like the department of Education and the like, which I can imagine a Liberal would have a bit of a problem with. Still, for Libertarians such as ourselves, Paul’s platform is music to our ears. I personally think Paul is a bit extreme on some issues, but I support him because he’s an honest, logical man who would also end the war faster then any of the “frontrunners“- Republican or Democratic. He’d also get the debt under control, or at least make more of an effort in doing so then any of our recent past presidents, and that is the other big issue to me. 

And the Brits are cool. Not as much as the Germans though, ha ha.

[Reluctant Republican]

I just dug up a story about the CNBC debate from a week ago.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-silenced-at-cnbc-debate-transcript.html

Hope that's right. Anyway, the gist of what the guy did was he took the numbers of words each candidate spoke, and then added them up. As can be expected, the frontrunners spoke the most, but what I found suprising and what makes me think that the bias argument has some legs to it is that Paul was dead last in number of words spoken in the debate. Now, I’m not saying that he should be given equal time with the frontrunners. Statically they are ahead in the polls and I’m not a person that believes you should give someone at 20 percent and someone at 1 percent the same amount of time. But it seems to me that Paul, who usually polls 1 or 2 points higher then Brownback [while he was in the race.] or Tancredo and whose fundraising greatly outpaces theirs, should not have gotten the least amount of time in the debate. Hopefully Paul will be given a bit more time to speak on the Fox’s debate this Sunday, preferably more then at least Hunter and Tancredo.

[Reluctant Republican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not?

Ideally I’m in favor of it, but when you have ten or even eight guys on a stage, it’s hard to distribute time equally , and I think that candidates who have shown to be polling and fundraising better should be “rewarded” more or less with more time to discuss the issues then the others. Of course, this brings up a “chicken or egg” argument where you have to wonder if the reason the frontrunners are frontrunners is because they are given the lion’s share of media coverage. But again, ideally I wish every debate would be like the ones that were on PBS, where every candidate was asked the same question and given a chance to respond. But if you want to cover more subjects in a debate, and get more substantive answers, you need to either focus on one specific issue to cover for the entire debate, or only allow a few candidates to answer any specific question, and most debates choose the latter option.