Elections over the years have moved toward a relatively small number of donors - mostly big lobbying, corporate and powerful individuals. The first part of a "top tier" candidate's strategy is to line up the big donors, then line up the establishment endorsements - to further line up donors. But more importantly, they have interacted very little with the constituents and depend upon the MSM to drive their message. In essence the establishment media has acted as the defacto advertising arm because this coverage will net them millions in advertising to their national and local affiliate stations.
Where this becomes important is that their support in the real population is not nearly as strong as the media coverage would lead anyone to believe.
People vote for them not because they are that excited but because they think that they are voting with the majority. They pick their candidates and then essentially make up their reasons for the choice later. The "apathetic" 100 million or so who have stopped voting, simply do not care anymore because they see it for the farce that it is.
But Ron Paul is different. Not just because of his positions. But because he hasn't approached his campaign(s) in the same way.
He didn't start out by hitting the big donors, he started out by developing a message that would appeal to a broad coalition of individuals. It has, and has brought the support of individual donors.
The point I'm making here is that the "top tier" candidates do not have nearly the support that is imagined. It's shallow and based on name recognition only. It doesn't matter anymore what the MSM reports or doesn't report. It is already too late for them. Ron Paul is going to win. They can either jump on the bandwagon or forever alienate us (I don't count since I haven't had a television in my home for the past 10 years).
Y'all could just turn off the TV (if you haven't already), have lots more time to work the streets for Ron and help build the new MSM.
We *are* America, and we *are* the new MSM. Don't believe me? How can thousands upon thousands of internet surfers be wrong? Everyone has to be noticing the amazing increase in traffic to their sites since they started covering Ron Paul.
I've had my blog since 2004. If I ever got 20 page views in a day I was lucky. Now, I am beginning to get a steady, 300 page views a day merely because I started focusing on Ron Paul. Hell, I wrote about Ron for many years prior but he wasn't running for President then and nobody other than a group of loyal libertarians had ever heard of him.
That's all changed. We are the new media. The current MSM has already been rendered moot. Guess where all of these advertising dollars are going? Yahoo, DoubleClick, Google. The market is speaking. Listen to it.
1 comment:
Very powerful essay. I'm a meetup group coordinator, and I'm going to point this out as an alternative view for those who complain about the lack of attention paid by the traditional media outlets. Although I have to admit I'm a little puzzled by the lack of attention...doesn't America love underdogs? At the very least, you would think more traditional outlets would have reported his internet presence. Maybe I've answered my own question - perhaps they're threatened people might check out this internet thing and never come back. I do feel there's a conflict of interest created when TV networks that can generate huge revenue from political ads. If you were looking to maximize your revenue, wouldn't you be extra nice to the rich man with the nice hair?
Post a Comment