I had wanted to speak to him about Ron Paul’s exclusion in the debates. Several Ron Paul supporters found and posted his direct office line so I called.
He was very polite. He thought I was calling about Duncan Hunter, then I said it was actually Ron Paul.
I told him I thought they should be concerned about excluding Ron Paul. He sort of cut me off and said, “You are concerned”. And I said, “yes, but I’m also concerned that FOX News is going to miss out because Ron Paul is pretty interesting guy”. He said that was subjective. I said that for example, Google makes a lot of money off Ron Paul.
He told me Google only makes money off advertising, but not Ron Paul. I corrected him and told him Ron Paul drives traffic to sites, and that in fact, people bid on keywords and that Ron Paul’s keywords are worth more than those of other candidates. He said that’s the case because a lot of his base is on the internet, to which I agreed.
He said a lot of people thought they were trying to exclude Ron Paul because of some special agenda, but he said that they had established a criteria about needing 10% in the national polls because the coming debate in NH would be very focused. But that there will be another debate on Thursday in South Carolina which Ron Paul will be in, and that in fact, Alan Keys will not, because he didn’t meet the criteria.
Sometime before the call ended, I also told him people were selling their NWS stock because of the exclusion, and he said, “Well, people have the right to be angry at us and sell their shares. This happens from time to time.”
I thanked him, told him I didn’t want to waste too much of his time and that I’d tell other people not to call him about that. Then he said, “no, I’m actually taking time off to answer phone calls, so it’s quite alright.”
It was kind of surprising that he was so polite.
Be nice if you call, and try not to ask the same questions I asked, alright?
Afterword
How can I be mad at FOX News and John Moody now? I recommend you don’t call John Moody; he is too polite and reasonable. You might actually start to think FOX News is fair. Can you live with the cognitive dissonance?
You deserve praise for openly discussing Ron Paul on FOX News. I wonder if you had to take a pay a fine every time you said Ron Paul’s name, or for every second you discussed him. I know you will be getting a lot of positive emails from Ron Paul supporters.
Just one objection: You continue to assume Ron Paul will not win the nomination, which is an understandable assumption. But it is an assumption, and some of your colleagues have been very wrong on their assumptions. For example Michael Steele had said Ron Paul “[is] done” after the first debate in South Carolina almost 8 months ago.
In fact, you are perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophesy. Ron Paul doesn’t really need your debates more than he needs positive exposure and name-recognition. This is key in marketing. Some Ron Paul supporters sometimes give Ron Paul a bad name via their obsessive campaigning or their wide variety of views. Ron Paul appeals to many distinct groups because everyone wants liberty, including liberty from each other. But I digress slightly; the point is, you (the media) hardly discuss Ron Paul’s stances in depth. You barely touch the surface of Ron Paul’s stances, and at the surface, his stances look quite ‘kooky’. Sadly, Ron Paul doesn’t promote himself with cheap soundbites, so that doesn’t help make your job easier, but now that he has a solid 10% anchor in Iowa you have a justification for taking Ron Paul seriously and discussing his stances beyond the surface.
It’s not your job to make Ron Paul look good, but presumably, it’s not your job to make him look bad either. Do you want high ratings? Discuss Ron Paul in depth. Even people who disagree with him are intrigued by what he actually believes. His views are counter-intuitive. Not all of them are strictly pragmatic or even objectively correct. But they are certainly thought-provoking.
If Ron Paul has no chance, then what’s the harm in giving him even airtime? He is certainly more interesting than Britney Spears (though arguably not as good-looking). A common technique used by websites is to talk about Ron Paul. It increases viewer traffic so much that Google makes more money on bids for Ron Paul’s name as a keyword than any other candidate. FOX News is already revolutionary in marketing and propaganda (I mean this in a positive way); you can hold an audience’s attention like no other news network. Now add some substance (Ron Paul) and you’ll make a killing. CNN is beginning to take advantage of this insider knowledge, and now that Ron Paul has secured some credibility in Iowa there is no shame in taking Ron Paul seriously.
If you are looking for substance and higher ratings, give Ron Paul a call. Take a hint from Shepard Smith and Greta Van Susteren.
Many of you have wanted to help Ron Paul in one way or another, but you are not allowed to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign, or you may have maxed out your allowable contribution. Well, here is an easy way to help, which may benefit you in more than one way: Sell all your NWS stock.
Teach FOX News a lesson. Make them bleed green until they put Ron Paul back into the debates.
Probably coincidental, but it need not be if people start selling now. Even if people are skeptical that it has anything to do with Ron Paul supporters, it would be smart to sell your NWS stock just to be safe.
We issue 200,000 student visas a year. One of the hijackers had an F-1 student visa. The majority had tourist, business, or visit visas.
So if you are looking to protect the country, a more logical thing to do is ban (1) male (2) Saudi Arabians (3) between the ages of 21 and 43 (4) religious (5) possibly training in flight school.
And, yet, an irrational “strategy” as such would foment more terrorism:
It is necessary to note that relative deprivation
creating exclusion is a comprehensive phenomenon. It
is not merely a socio-economic driver. In fact, relative
deprivation in terms of political space and human
dignity is often even more significant than socioeconomic
factors. The Palestinians in Israel-occupied
territories, whose mobility is curtailed by the Israeli
defence forces, feel deprived of dignity. The Tamils in
Sri Lanka, who have to give up their linguistic advantage
and political balance of power because of constitutional
changes, feel deprived. The Acholis were socioeconomically
deprived for years but it wasn’t until the
Musevini government began to target them specifically
that they took up arms. The Moros of the Philippines
who see migrants from other parts of the country
dominating their economy feel relatively deprived not
just in an economic sense but also in a political and
cultural context. The Iraqis who see their country
overtaken by an external force feel relatively deprived
irrespective of the economic condition of any
particular citizen.
Another reason why “terrorism” is a poor qualifier. We define terrorism to suit our “needs”.
It is possible for any ideology, delivered by
determined and able leaders, anywhere in the world, to
transform those feeling excluded from their society
into terrorists or extremists. In public discourse,
however, there is an unfortunate effort made to
emphasize certain forms of terrorism. As the global
power structure is dominated by the West, attacks on
Western interests are defined as terrorism. The attacks
that do not target the United States and its allies are
defined as acts of ethnic conflict, freedom struggle, or
mere violence
Terrorism is vague and ill-defined. A “terrorist nation” is too, by consequence.
Western discourse on terrorism, with a focus on
Islamist extremism, is therefore neither entirely about
terrorism nor about Islamist extremism. It is not
entirely about terrorism because it does not include
terrorism practised by several national, sub-national
groups, labeling some of them as liberation
movements. It is not entirely about terrorism because
it hardly considers rural-based revolutionary
organisations, responsible for killing thousands of
people in Asia and Latin America. It is not entirely
about Islamist extremism because it blames the groups
in the Middle East that have no ambition to alter the
international order, while giving inadequate attention
to the specific organisations that want to establish a
Caliphate by violent means and that are positioning
themselves to succeed Al Qaeda in the International
Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. In
ignoring the threats of terrorism around the world
from nationalist, sub-nationalist and revolutionary
groups that commit violent acts and ignoring the threats
posed by Central and South Asian Islamist
organisations to the global security, Western discourse
is selectively focussed on the Middle East. It is more
about the strategic interests of the West in a particular
region than the threats to humanity emanating from
the ideologies of mass destruction.
The media manipulates the focus and definition of terrorism by framing.
The mutually obsessive discourse in Western and
Islamic societies is manipulated by the media, either
by design or otherwise. If North Korea tests a nuclear
weapon the news disappears from the front page of
most newspapers within a couple of days. If Iraq or
Iran is suspected to have even the most elementary
capacity to develop such a weapon, this is major
news for months after months. If Lord’s Resistance
Army forces children to kill their siblings in thousands,
it is a human interest story that appears only
occasionally in the inside pages. If Iran’s President
threatens Israel, it is major news and the subject of
endless op-ed analysis.
In short, terrorism exists on exclusion. Especially unfair exclusion and perceived loss of dignity.
What do you suppose a disproportionate and ignorant measure like banning students from “terrorist nations” accomplishes?
It gets ignorant people to feel good about their safety. It excludes more people who are already living under conditions that fuel terrorism, and it completely misses the point.
