Wh is Ron Paul getting searched more, but covered by the MSM no more?
Probably because he's not getting coverage in the media and because his supporters are all over the net, skewing results wherever they can. But then Ron Paul does have more Meetups than any other candidate. He even has supporters in other countries apparently. Check it out:
Ron Paul getting meager media coverage is nothing new.
The media, and even since the early press before it, has never really given a third party candidate much of a chance. In fact, the tone has consistently been one of joyful derision--rarely do the news journalists get the license to toss mud so freely, so joyfully, so universally. I am trying to remember a third party candidate who has not been called crazy, but can't think of one.
This problem is an old one, and has nothing much to do with the current eviseration of the news portion of the modern media. (If they keep going, they will have to omit the word "news" altogether. The ABC outlet where I live sounds more like Entertainment Tonight than the Evening News, putting in stories about celebrities, charismatic plastic surgeons, some fashion of 'make-overs' which of course mixes the concept of the lottery with scubbing up, with a strong nobles obligue nuance, one of the poor, fondling one simp out of a million so we can all fantacize feeling better.)
But this brings things into focus for those that still stint the internet and its influence on politics. Should, in the end, the internet give fair and level coverage to Ron Paul or any other candidate representing something beyond the two parties, and disengage from the automatic and universal dismissals, then we have a click in media evolution, registering in this instance as positive.
