Forward to next post: Who’s Afraid of the Significant and Sustained Decline in Economic Activity?
I’ve been watching CNN’s coverage of the Iowa caucuses. They’ve called the races for Obama and Huckabee, so many viewers will have switched off their sets. That must be why they’re now talking about Ron Paul.
While it was still a race and more viewers were watching, Ron Paul was the invisible man. The pie charts were the most blatant manifestation. The one CNN showed for the Democrats listed Obama, Edwards, Clinton—and Richardson, who got 2% of the vote.
Their pie chart for the Republicans listed Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, and McCain. The remaining wedge was filled with a black-and-white filling pattern. Clearly, whatever fell into that wedge wasn’t worth reporting. It was Ron Paul.* Earlier this evening, when CNN was excitedly blathering about what a hot race the Republicans had going for third place, with Thompson at 14% and McCain at 13%, total precincts reporting in showed Ron Paul at 11%.
There’s no good reason for it. If CNN were objectively reporting the news, that disparity wouldn’t exist.
The next round of this game will be played by Fox News. Will they continue to exclude Ron Paul from this weekend’s debates in New Hampshire, over the protests of New Hampshire’s own Republican Party? Fox has Giuliani scheduled for the debates, and he scored a measly 4% in Iowa.
An important point: I am not one of the internet’s horde of Ron Paul supporters. Far from it. Very far from it. But it’s not the place of CNN, or Fox News, or any other news organization, to pass judgement on Ron Paul’s legitimacy as a candidate.
Addendum: Nina Katarina observes:
This really ought to have been the story of the night in Iowa:
356,000 total turnout
Percentage of total vote24.5% Obama
11.4% Huckabee (R)