Aug 16, 2011
Last Saturday, we witnessed what has been regularly touted as one of the first big events of the 2012 campaign for the White House: the Iowa Straw Poll. The results of the poll were the following: Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%) Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%), Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%), Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%) Herman Cain (1456, 8.62%) Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%) Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%) Jon Huntsmann (69, 0.41%) Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%).
I don't know about you, but when I look at those figures I see a virtual tie for first place, one that is particularly surprising given the fact that the "just by a hair" second place finisher, Ron Paul, received very little mainstream media coverage in the weeks and months leading to the event.
During this time, the "experts" on our screens have told us lots of stories about Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsmann, and more recently, Rick Perry. But they told us very, very few about Ron Paul. Yet here was Ron Paul in a virtual dead heat with the much talked about Bachmann.
From a journalistic perspective this had to be seen as a great story. No? You know, an event with endlessly fascinating David vs. Goliath story lines. Right?
Well, not really.
The New York Times reporter on the case, Jeff Zeleny made quick work of Paul saying, "Ron Paul of Texas, whose libertarian views put him at odds with many Republicans, finished slightly behind Mrs. Bachmann in the straw poll." He then went on to speculate at length about the candidacies of Bachmann and two of the notable laggards in the voting, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, concluding with the following:
"The race, at least in the short term, will focus on this trio: Mr. Romney, who is seen as next in line for the nomination, if the traditional rules of Republican presidential politics apply; Mrs. Bachmann, whose insurgent style has captured the imagination of many conservative activists; and Mr. Perry, who has held elective office his entire adult life, but has tapped into passionate small-government, anti-Washington sentiment within the party."
In other words, never mind the outcome of the straw poll, the very vote that we journalists have endlessly hyped as being a good indicator of the "popular sentiment" of the people of Iowa, and from there, the nation. Those of us (wink, wink) who ride around on the bus with the candidates know certain things that the credulous dopes who actually went to the polls don't yet understand.
The most important of these is the fact that no matter how many votes Ron Paul gets, he will never be considered a "serious" or "electable" candidate because he openly challenges the imperial foreign policy consensus embraced by 90-95% of the US political class.
Reporters who spend their time around policy makers know this. But, rather than pointing this out to readers and asking out loud whether it is "right" "democratic" or even "pragmatically advantageous" that it be so, rather than doing stories that deconstruct the many methods used inside the elite opinion-making apparatus to get people to view those like Paul who challenge consensual orthodoxies as "crazy" "ridiculous" or "unserious", courtiers like Zeleny pre-emptively fold before their masters.
He and the many others who act like him say, in effect, "We know that you, the institutional power brokers, don't want these dissident people in the limelight and that, should the need arise, you will invent any possible pretext to bring them down (Howard Dean scream anyone?). This being the case, and given the fact that we reporters want to remain in your good graces for reasons of personal ambition, we will help you out by simply pretending such people do not exist. When, after a fashion, no one hears about them, they'll simply go away. Deal?"
It seems the people in big media, who never miss a chance to issue bathetic praises of our uniquely "democratic" system, one that is, they like to tell us, the "envy of the world", aren't really that into piddling little concepts like ballots and registering the people's demonstrated preferences.
When those voting their consciences make the "mistake" of choosing candidates with ideas that the high command of the empire will not tolerate, aren't we are lucky to have the sophisticated Zelenys of the world there to remind the rubes how, and toward whom, they must now refocus their attention?
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Thomas S. Harrington
Thomas S. Harrington is professor of Hispanic Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut and the author of Public Intellectuals and Nation Building in the Iberian Peninsula, 1900-1925: The Alchemy of Identity (Bucknell University Press, 2014).
Last Saturday, we witnessed what has been regularly touted as one of the first big events of the 2012 campaign for the White House: the Iowa Straw Poll. The results of the poll were the following: Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%) Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%), Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%), Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%) Herman Cain (1456, 8.62%) Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%) Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%) Jon Huntsmann (69, 0.41%) Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%).
I don't know about you, but when I look at those figures I see a virtual tie for first place, one that is particularly surprising given the fact that the "just by a hair" second place finisher, Ron Paul, received very little mainstream media coverage in the weeks and months leading to the event.
During this time, the "experts" on our screens have told us lots of stories about Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsmann, and more recently, Rick Perry. But they told us very, very few about Ron Paul. Yet here was Ron Paul in a virtual dead heat with the much talked about Bachmann.
From a journalistic perspective this had to be seen as a great story. No? You know, an event with endlessly fascinating David vs. Goliath story lines. Right?
Well, not really.
The New York Times reporter on the case, Jeff Zeleny made quick work of Paul saying, "Ron Paul of Texas, whose libertarian views put him at odds with many Republicans, finished slightly behind Mrs. Bachmann in the straw poll." He then went on to speculate at length about the candidacies of Bachmann and two of the notable laggards in the voting, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, concluding with the following:
"The race, at least in the short term, will focus on this trio: Mr. Romney, who is seen as next in line for the nomination, if the traditional rules of Republican presidential politics apply; Mrs. Bachmann, whose insurgent style has captured the imagination of many conservative activists; and Mr. Perry, who has held elective office his entire adult life, but has tapped into passionate small-government, anti-Washington sentiment within the party."
In other words, never mind the outcome of the straw poll, the very vote that we journalists have endlessly hyped as being a good indicator of the "popular sentiment" of the people of Iowa, and from there, the nation. Those of us (wink, wink) who ride around on the bus with the candidates know certain things that the credulous dopes who actually went to the polls don't yet understand.
The most important of these is the fact that no matter how many votes Ron Paul gets, he will never be considered a "serious" or "electable" candidate because he openly challenges the imperial foreign policy consensus embraced by 90-95% of the US political class.
Reporters who spend their time around policy makers know this. But, rather than pointing this out to readers and asking out loud whether it is "right" "democratic" or even "pragmatically advantageous" that it be so, rather than doing stories that deconstruct the many methods used inside the elite opinion-making apparatus to get people to view those like Paul who challenge consensual orthodoxies as "crazy" "ridiculous" or "unserious", courtiers like Zeleny pre-emptively fold before their masters.
He and the many others who act like him say, in effect, "We know that you, the institutional power brokers, don't want these dissident people in the limelight and that, should the need arise, you will invent any possible pretext to bring them down (Howard Dean scream anyone?). This being the case, and given the fact that we reporters want to remain in your good graces for reasons of personal ambition, we will help you out by simply pretending such people do not exist. When, after a fashion, no one hears about them, they'll simply go away. Deal?"
It seems the people in big media, who never miss a chance to issue bathetic praises of our uniquely "democratic" system, one that is, they like to tell us, the "envy of the world", aren't really that into piddling little concepts like ballots and registering the people's demonstrated preferences.
When those voting their consciences make the "mistake" of choosing candidates with ideas that the high command of the empire will not tolerate, aren't we are lucky to have the sophisticated Zelenys of the world there to remind the rubes how, and toward whom, they must now refocus their attention?
Thomas S. Harrington
Thomas S. Harrington is professor of Hispanic Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut and the author of Public Intellectuals and Nation Building in the Iberian Peninsula, 1900-1925: The Alchemy of Identity (Bucknell University Press, 2014).
Last Saturday, we witnessed what has been regularly touted as one of the first big events of the 2012 campaign for the White House: the Iowa Straw Poll. The results of the poll were the following: Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%) Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%), Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%), Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%) Herman Cain (1456, 8.62%) Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%) Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%) Jon Huntsmann (69, 0.41%) Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%).
I don't know about you, but when I look at those figures I see a virtual tie for first place, one that is particularly surprising given the fact that the "just by a hair" second place finisher, Ron Paul, received very little mainstream media coverage in the weeks and months leading to the event.
During this time, the "experts" on our screens have told us lots of stories about Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsmann, and more recently, Rick Perry. But they told us very, very few about Ron Paul. Yet here was Ron Paul in a virtual dead heat with the much talked about Bachmann.
From a journalistic perspective this had to be seen as a great story. No? You know, an event with endlessly fascinating David vs. Goliath story lines. Right?
Well, not really.
The New York Times reporter on the case, Jeff Zeleny made quick work of Paul saying, "Ron Paul of Texas, whose libertarian views put him at odds with many Republicans, finished slightly behind Mrs. Bachmann in the straw poll." He then went on to speculate at length about the candidacies of Bachmann and two of the notable laggards in the voting, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, concluding with the following:
"The race, at least in the short term, will focus on this trio: Mr. Romney, who is seen as next in line for the nomination, if the traditional rules of Republican presidential politics apply; Mrs. Bachmann, whose insurgent style has captured the imagination of many conservative activists; and Mr. Perry, who has held elective office his entire adult life, but has tapped into passionate small-government, anti-Washington sentiment within the party."
In other words, never mind the outcome of the straw poll, the very vote that we journalists have endlessly hyped as being a good indicator of the "popular sentiment" of the people of Iowa, and from there, the nation. Those of us (wink, wink) who ride around on the bus with the candidates know certain things that the credulous dopes who actually went to the polls don't yet understand.
The most important of these is the fact that no matter how many votes Ron Paul gets, he will never be considered a "serious" or "electable" candidate because he openly challenges the imperial foreign policy consensus embraced by 90-95% of the US political class.
Reporters who spend their time around policy makers know this. But, rather than pointing this out to readers and asking out loud whether it is "right" "democratic" or even "pragmatically advantageous" that it be so, rather than doing stories that deconstruct the many methods used inside the elite opinion-making apparatus to get people to view those like Paul who challenge consensual orthodoxies as "crazy" "ridiculous" or "unserious", courtiers like Zeleny pre-emptively fold before their masters.
He and the many others who act like him say, in effect, "We know that you, the institutional power brokers, don't want these dissident people in the limelight and that, should the need arise, you will invent any possible pretext to bring them down (Howard Dean scream anyone?). This being the case, and given the fact that we reporters want to remain in your good graces for reasons of personal ambition, we will help you out by simply pretending such people do not exist. When, after a fashion, no one hears about them, they'll simply go away. Deal?"
It seems the people in big media, who never miss a chance to issue bathetic praises of our uniquely "democratic" system, one that is, they like to tell us, the "envy of the world", aren't really that into piddling little concepts like ballots and registering the people's demonstrated preferences.
When those voting their consciences make the "mistake" of choosing candidates with ideas that the high command of the empire will not tolerate, aren't we are lucky to have the sophisticated Zelenys of the world there to remind the rubes how, and toward whom, they must now refocus their attention?
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.