Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[Dinner]

You must realize that conservatives think CBS News is super liberal and hence "become terrible". FWIW, it is far less liberal than Fox News is conservative.

Though conservatives may have some reason to be wary because of the whole scandal with Dan Rather and forged documents criticizing Dubya's Texas Air National Guard record - but that is one incident.

I read Dan Rather's book about this and he genuinely thought the documents were real (the fact checkers went over it and they seemed genuine, the network editor gave him the go ahead on the story) but when it turned out they weren't he publicly retracted them on the air, did a long on air piece correcting the previous article, and then publicly apologized for falling for the fake documents. That does follow proper journalist ethnics as well as CBS's own policies on such matters so while it was regretable CBS's follow up response shows why they're still real journalists and why Fox isn't (they don't follow such basic journalistic norms).

[Felch]

There's more to politics that the one dimensional right-left spectrum, Imran, and head to head polls are meaningless ten months before an election. CBS represents the conventional wisdom, and Ron Paul is in opposition to that. Romney and Obama have more in common with each other than they do with Paul.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I really doubt CBS cares about "conventional wisdom" rather than ratings & drawn out primary = ratings.

[Dinner]

Which is precisely why I would vote for Paul were I eligible. Any candidate that scares the **** out of the Establishment like he does would get my vote.

I'd vote for him (or maybe some far left hippy party like Peace & Freedom) as a protest vote if he ran 3rd party but I live in a state which Obama will win in a land slide fashion so it's not like my vote will count.

[Felch]

Networks do put ratings above all else, but I was speaking in terms of editorial viewpoint.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm sure the editors are informed from up high that ratings are the thing. Besides, editors love to push the "big news" sensationalist items.

[DaShi]

He doesn't have to. All I ask is to be left alone. It's the other side that demands conformity and obedience.

Join us Felch. There's nothing higher than Jesus.

[HalfLotus]

I'm sure the editors are informed from up high that ratings are the thing. Besides, editors love to push the "big news" sensationalist items.

NDAA is pretty sensational, why doesn't US media cover it?

[Felch]

I'm sure the editors are informed from up high that ratings are the thing. Besides, editors love to push the "big news" sensationalist items.

If the media were really trying to just put on a good show, they wouldn't have ignored Ron Paul. Good television requires a sense of conflict and tension, and Ron Paul provided that. He was polling in second place, and his heterodoxy gave a good narrative. But for some reason, CBS completely ignored him.

[HalfLotus]

The Big Mo: Ron Paul Skyrockets in South Carolina While Rick Santorum Plummets

Apparently the political science concept of “Big Mo,” or the concept of big momentum pushing candidates who win early caucuses and primaries ahead in subsequent primary and caucus states’ polls, applies to Ron Paul as well.

As the Hill reports, the American Research Group released its most recent poll of likely Republican primary voters in South Carolina showing Ron Paul skyrocketing from 9 percent to 20 percent in today’s latest poll.

Paul’s previous 9 percent number comes from a poll conducted just a few days earlier, on Jan 4-5. However, after Jan 10th’s New Hampshire primary and Ron Paul’s strong 2nd place finish, this poll finds his support significantly raised to 20 percent. Romney placed first at 29 percent and Gingrich second at 25 percent.

Big Mo can also have the reversed effect for candidates underperforming. For instance, despite Rick Santorum’s surprise near-win in Iowa, Santorum significantly underperformed in New Hampshire, coming in a distant fifth at 8 percent. Likely as a consequence, the ARG poll finds his numbers plummeting from 24 percent in the Jan 4-5 poll to merely 7 percent by Jan 11-12.

[Elok]

If the media were really trying to just put on a good show, they wouldn't have ignored Ron Paul. Good television requires a sense of conflict and tension, and Ron Paul provided that. He was polling in second place, and his heterodoxy gave a good narrative. But for some reason, CBS completely ignored him.

But nobody wants to hear about him, is the thing. He proposes radical changes like legalizing drugs--which most people don't like. He wants to massively cut government programs--which most people don't like, even the ones who say they do when they mean "stop giving my money to poor people." He backs up his proposals with appeals to a relatively obscure school of economics, which is bound to bore people and/or make them feel dumb. He's not especially articulate and tends to get carried away on lengthy rants about the Fed, which come across as crazy. He's generally too unsettling to be sympathetic and too consistent to be a subject of easy derision, which makes him resistant to the simplistic narratives TV people like to spin. So the networks tend to ignore him and hope he goes away.

[Elok]

However, I will say that last night's Daily Show--in which Gingrich spouted breathtakingly racist sentiments then bristled at people's ingratitude when they got offended by it--puts the whole newsletter brouhaha in perspective. All of Ron Paul's horrible, horrible racism was years and years ago, and he at least understands that it's offensive...

[HalfLotus]

But nobody wants to hear about him, is the thing. He proposes radical changes like legalizing drugs--which most people don't like. He wants to massively cut government programs--which most people don't like, even the ones who say they do when they mean "stop giving my money to poor people." He backs up his proposals with appeals to a relatively obscure school of economics, which is bound to bore people and/or make them feel dumb. He's not especially articulate and tends to get carried away on lengthy rants about the Fed, which come across as crazy. He's generally too unsettling to be sympathetic and too consistent to be a subject of easy derision, which makes him resistant to the simplistic narratives TV people like to spin. So the networks tend to ignore him and hope he goes away.

This isn't his primary rhetoric though. In major media interviews he focuses on ending the wars, balancing the budget, and auditing the Federal Reserve - all of which are wildly popular among the electorate.

[Elok]

?

Every time I've seen him talk, he started to answer the question asked but quickly digressed to a discussion of the gold standard and how the Fed is screwing over America's economy and so on, becoming visibly worked up the more he talked. By the end of any given answer he's so riled he's stammering and dropping clauses. While his anti-war policies get a fair amount of support, when he talks he comes across as Batty Grandpa.

[Elok]

To be fair, though, my wife likes Paul, so I get to see and overhear a lot more of his stuff than just the mainstream media appearances. Perhaps he's better in debates, I don't have access to those from here.

EDIT: Actually, I may be misremembering when he said what, in which appearances. I can say with confidence that he pretty much always ends up squawking, though, and that ain't good.