News/Journalism Project: Ron Paul

By: Megan Howe, Brittany Link, Thomas Andrs, Lisa Lindeman, and Sarah Burge

News used to be spread through word of mouth and would get twisted with each new person that relayed the news. Now, we get our news through newspapers, blogs, and major television networks and now it is being twisted before it even reaches our ears or our eyes. This twisting occurs in every news outlet and is directly related to Chomsky's news filters. To show this we all looked at different news outlets and documented how they have been portraying Ron Paul and his presidential campaign. Within that we also looked at the different aspects of the individual news outlets, as well as how they related to each other. Then we took all of the information and looked at how Chomsky's filter's created the news that we documented.

Documentation:

We chose to focus on five different news outlets. Those five outlets were CNN, Fox, the Star Tribune, the National Review, and Politico.

First, we talked about CNN. On CNN, we found that generally Ron Paul and his presidential campaign were portrayed through interviews of Ron Paul himself or through clips of Ron Paul speaking about the things they were talking about himself as well. It seems that CNN has left reporting about Ron Paul and his presidential campaign to Ron Paul, since they seem to be allowing Ron Paul to speak for himself in almost every instance. However, the when showing clips they seem to show clips that are obviously meant to be inflammatory towards those in support of President Obama/the democratic party. Even more interesting though, was the fact that during the interviews with Ron Paul, CNN seemed to focus on things that were negative, but towards other Republican candidates (mostly Herman Cain and his economic views) and not Ron Paul himself. Over all, it seems as though CNN is allowing Ron Paul to portray himself however he likes because they know he is not a true contender in the upcoming election and, therefore, they can use his comments against his opponents to make the true contenders for the 2012 election look bad without getting their own hands dirty. CNN spent anywhere from 32 seconds to 22 minutes talking about or to Ron Paul. The shortest were generally the times in which they were talking about a topic and used a clip from Ron Paul to show Ron Paul's view on that topic. The longer ones were either interviews that CNN hosts conducted with Ron Paul or CNN coverages of republican debates. CNN began coverage of Ron Paul in relation to his presidential campaign for 2012 consistently for a few days after he first announced his candidacy. After that they only covered him about once every week, and would only cover him for more than one day if there was something that he did that they needed to follow. CNN attempts to act as if it is a neutral news outlet, but their coverage of Ron Paul obviously shows, if only slightly, a left ward leaning, at least where politics is concerned. We choose to read this short clip in which Ron Paul talks to CNN about his belief about Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan. (Here it is: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2011/10/18/bts-paul-cain-999-plan-bad.cnn) The first thing that we noticed was the video only shows Ron Paul. Although at one point you can obviously hear his interviewer, you do not see her through out the entire clip. We believe that this just further goes to show the idea that CNN is almost trying to disassociate itself from any of his negative comments, but they still want to bring those negative comments to public light. Associated with this is also that normally CNN has their logo in the bottom corner as well as scroll on the bottom with their logo colors on it. However, in this video the only way you would know that it's from CNN are because there are a few small logos in the background that are the same color as the pole that they are mounted on. This is another clear sign of CNN attempting to disassociate themselves from his comments, but at the same time thinking his comments are important (or good) for the public to hear. Another thing we noticed, is that all you can see of Ron Paul in this whole video is his upper chest and head. You do not see is legs, lower torso, or hands. This is particularly interesting because Ron Paul is known as the 'older' candidate in the Republican race and we believe this was done in an attempt to keep Ron Paul from looking older. Older people generally have small, wrinkled hands and small, non-muscular torsos and legs, which makes people think of someone you is frail and needs to be taken care of; not someone who can take care of others, which is not something that people are looking for in a president. In contrast to that, when people see an older person with a wrinkled face, they think of kindness and wisdom, which are things that people are looking for in a president. This could have been the choice of CNN, however, it seems much more likely that this was a choice made by the Ron Paul campaign, which was acquiesced to by CNN because they had their own demands about how the interview would appear as we previously mentioned. The last big thing that we noticed was that the clip was actually edited, cutting out part of the interview. The fact that they edited the clip just further goes to show CNN's ulterior motive. If they were simply trying to inform their watchers about Ron Paul's opinion on Herman Cain's tax plan, they would have left the interview unedited. Obviously, CNN new what they wanted Ron Paul to say for them and left out anything that they didn't want to say.

Then we talked about Fox. As far as Fox is concerned, Ron Paul is a good, truthful person, but not a true republican or a threat to those true republicans running for president in 2012. Fox did more of its own reporting about Ron Paul than CNN did. Fox also used clips of Ron Paul speaking in other events, but generally in the context of when they were talking about Ron Paul. Fox also seemed to mention Ron Paul in places where they were not specifically talking about Ron Paul. While they do not really present Ron Paul in a negative light, they also did not present Ron Paul in a positive light. It is interesting because both CNN and Fox seem to treat Ron Paul as someone who is not a threat and, therefore, do not need to portray him in a negative light. Fox seemed to focus more on Pon Paul's own opinions about his presidential, rather than his opinions on his competitors, which is what CNN seemed to be doing. When Fox did show clips talking about his competitors, it was always positively, as if they were almost going to paint Ron Paul as a nice, old wise man, who is not a threat to anyone. Fox has been portraying Ron Paul as a strong 3rd party candidate, which leads us to believe that Fox views Ron Paul as someone who is not good for the republican presidential nomination, but someone who can help raise up the 'real' presidential candidate or, if worse comes to worse, he can be a strong 3rd party candidate that still has a chance at over coming President Obama. Since Ron Paul has announced his candidacy, Fox has interviewed him 35. Additionally, he has been reported on pretty much daily since his announcement. The videos concerning Ron Paul or those in which Ron Paul was interviewed ranged in length from 1 minute to 18 minutes. Similarly to CNN, the shorter videos are those in which Ron Paul is mentioned or a pervious clip of his is played and the longer videos were those in which they were interviewing Ron Paul personally. No one needs to tell you that Fox is obviously very right leaning, however in the context of Ron Paul they seem to move, if only slightly, more to the center of the political spectrum. We chose to read a clip from Fox as well. This clip is a longer interview with Ron Paul in something called the Center Seat, in which they talk to Ron Paul about several aspects of his candidacy. (Here is this link too: http://video.foxnews.com/v/1242229061001/is-this-the-age-of-ron-paul) The biggest thing that we noticed here is that Ron Paul has been seated in between some other Fox reporters, but to the left of the host (when watching it on T.V. of course). We found this to fit very well into the way that Fox is portraying Ron Paul, as an good person (hence his sitting in the middle of the other reporters and not on the side), but not as a true republican (hence the position of him to the visual left of the Fox host). His positioning is Fox's way of making sure that their viewers subconsciously know that he is a good 2nd choice, but their first choice should always be that of a good true republican. Another thing that we noticed was that, just like with CNN, Ron Paul's legs and lower torso were not shown. Although his hands were shown, they were never shown when they took close up shots and when they were shown in the long shots you could not see the wrinkles or weak hands. This is obviously something that Ron Paul's campaign is adamant about when Ron Paul makes appearances. However, it seems fairly obvious, just like with CNN, that Fox traded the shots that they would take with being able position Ron Paul however they wished. The last thing that we noticed was that Fox only put a small logo in the corner, just like CNN did. We believe that in this case that was Fox's way of visually representing their support of Ron Paul. Ron Paul has their support, but only minimally, as they believe that he is only a good second choice to a good, true republican.

Next we talked about the Star Tribune. This is the first outlet that we ran into that had a fairly obvious negative view of Ron Paul and his presidential campaign. It seems that the Star Tribune takes the tactic of taking statements made by Ron Paul or press releases from Ron Paul and spinning them on their heads to make them bad. This is the first outlet that seems to think of Ron Paul as a threat, but they don't seem to think of him as a threat to the other republican candidates or really the President. They really only seem to think he is a threat to society as a whole it seems. They portray him as a loser in the republican presidential race and not a real contender for the presidency in an way, shape, or form. The Star Tribune seems to take a more analytical view of the things that Ron Paul has says and instead of presenting them simply for the truth of them, as CNN and Fox did, they take them and establish an opinion on them of whether they are right or wrong. The Star Tribune seems to be using their analyses of Ron Paul's statements to inflame people as opposed to picking statements made by Ron Paul that are in themselves inflammatory. Ron Paul has appeared in the Star Tribune, since his candidacy announcement, at least every couple of days, not more. The articles were generally criticisms of Ron Paul's statements or plans for presidency, and ranged anywhere from 250 words to 900 words. The articles were rarely front page and often they were hard to find. It was almost as if the Star Tribune places the Ron Paul articles as they did to show that he is nothing to think about, but the inflammatory nature of their narratives seem to almost give him more credit than they think he is really worth. In their attempt to tear Ron Paul down, they almost make him a stronger contender by giving him such power as to make them angry. We found it interesting that the Star Tribune came across so left leaning (more so than CNN) when it came to Ron Paul. We believe that the Star Tribune normally is much more neutral, what with how much of a political swing state that Minnesota can be, but it seems that when it comes to Ron Paul the Star Tribune just feels too strongly about him. We chose to read an image from the one of the Star Tribune articles about Ron Paul as well. This article talked about Ron Paul's move into third place above Bachmann and was more reporting the surprise of the author that Ron Paul had a chance than how or why he got there. (Here is the image: )

This image was particularly interesting to our group because we saw how sharply this image contrasted to the way that Ron Paul has visually been represented in the two previous outlets. There were really only two main things that we noticed and thought were the most important about this image. The first, and lesser important, being the background. You cannot see what the actual background is and you do not know where he is, but you see the colors of the American flag. This is supposed to remind you, in the Star Tribune's case, that this man is running for president and looking to become your next leader. It is also worth noting, in our opinion, that we do not believe that this is the main reason that the Star Tribune choose this image, however. The second, and most important thing, about this image is Ron Paul's hand, which is why we believe the Star Tribune choose this image. Ron Paul's hand in this image looks wrinkly and frail. It is resting on his heart (almost as if he was reciting the pledge of allegiance), but it looks limp and lifeless (and sorry, but no we are not going to take the Freud view of this). We believe that this is the Star Tribune's attempt to take that very presidential background and put this frail, wrinkly, limp, and lifeless hand in juxtaposition of that. The Star Tribune is clearly trying to prove that if you elect this man to be your president, he will be like his hand in this image, frail and lifeless.

We also talked about the National Review. Now, the National Review is a conservative leaning political magazine. The National Review's media kits describes them as "America’s most widely read and influential magazine and website for Republican/conservative news, commentary and opinion." This outlet portrayed Ron Paul and his presidential campaign perhaps the most interesting. Although they did not start out negative, the deeper they went the more negative it became. However, this time, as opposed to the Star Tribune, the negativity was directed at the fact that Ron Paul is not considered a good enough republican by the National Review. The National Review was similar to the Star Tribune, however, in the sense that they used their analyses of Ron Paul to create this negativity as opposed to CNN and Fox who simply let Ron Paul be represented by things that he said. The National Review almost doesn't even seem to focus so much on Ron Paul to make Ron Paul look bad. They seem to go after his supporters. They use language that leads people to believe that if they believe in what Ron Paul believes in that means they're crazy and live in a fantasy world. This tactic makes it seem as though the National Review believes that Ron Paul is a problem, but does not want to give him the same power of being a threat that the Star Tribune did. So, instead of making him seem like a big deal they make his followers seem stupid and crazy in order to persuade people not to support him. Since Ron Paul has announced his candidacy for 2012 president, the National Review has written about him about every week. The articles range anywhere from about a page to six or seven pages. The longer articles are generally either interviews with him or criticisms of a major plan of his. The shorter ones are generally just informational about his campaign in general. The National Review has a very obvious right tilt, which is why it made it even more interesting for us to see them not support or remain neutral about Ron Paul and to actually portray him (and his followers for that matter) in such a negative way. We decided to read the cartoon of Ron Paul that was on the cover of the National Review when the main article was about him. This article was about Ron Paul and his followers being in a fantasy world (and interestingly enough talks about Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent). (Here is the image: )

We found this image to be extremely interesting to read. In this cover, Ron Paul is symbolically represented as a cartoon. His head is overly large so as to show his facial features. Ron Paul is 76 years old, so the picture accentuates his ears and nose and makes them huge when compared to the rest of his head, which also makes the rest of him and his horse smaller by comparison. Also making him look old is the gray in his hair, which is fairly accurate, and his bushy black eyebrows. The cartoon also gives off a sense that he is crazy by the way his eyes are portrayed. The symbolism continues down to his teeth, which look more like fangs. Maybe the author of the cartoon was intending to tell the audience that Paul’s words have bite and might sting since his ideas are outside of the “norm” in American Politics. In Paul’s left hand is a battered shield with the “peace sign” clearly represented and to double up the effect they

show Paul holding an olive branch in his right hand which historically also represents peace. Paul is very clear that if elected president that we would stop the war/s and better manage military spending. That government should protect liberty and also life, which would mean ending the war/s. Paul is portrayed as a knight in shining armor riding a very regal horse. The purple blanket on the horses back and shiny armor shows that Paul is near a crusade to have his ideas heard on “fixing” America. The most interesting piece of the cartoon is the “NO” on the horse’s armor. Combined with the terrified, crazed look in the horse’s eyes it would seem to state that not everyone is ready to run in the same direction as Ron Paul. Perhaps most interesting is this news outlet's portrating him as not frail, as all of the other news outlets either did or specifically attempted to avoid.

Lastly, we talked about Politico. Politico is a newspaper made and distributed on Capitol Hill. This newspaper is extremely politically oriented (as if the name didn't tell you that already). Politico seems to have taken the tactic of the Star Tribune when is comes to reporting Ron Paul. They take things that Ron Paul has said and attempt to spin them on their heads. They too use their analysis of the things that Ron Paul has said or released to make Ron Paul and his plans for when/if he becomes president as bad. They generally do not go into much detail about the actual release or the statement, but rather start out just hitting Ron Paul. They would either play those things off as poorly or play them off simply chance or luck (which is almost more like what the Star Tribune did). Since Ron Paul announced he was running, Politico has reported on him and his campaign several times a week. Those articles range anywhere from 30 words to 600 words. The shorter ones generally present a image or statement and quickly analysis it, while the longer ones generally talk about a specific plan that Ron Paul has. Politico is obviously far more left leaning than most of the other outlets, and we think that they may even be further left leaning when it comes to Ron Paul than the Star Tribune was. We chose to read an image from Politico as well. This article was about Ron Paul's plans to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget if he gets elected to the presidency. (Here is the image: )

We found this image to be interesting for two main reasons. The first being that blackness that persists throughout all of the image. This is meant to portray Ron Paul as an evil and bad person. The instant that someone looks at that image they are going to think that Ron Paul lives in a dark and bad place, despite what he may have been saying or where he may have been when that photo was taken. The second, and more important, thing about this photo is the body position that Ron Paul is in. He has his hand thrown up and a almost confused look on his face. This is clearly meant to represent a confused and defensive man. Politico is obviously trying to convince its readers, subconsciously, that not only is Ron Paul surrounding by darkness (literally in this case), but he is also confused and defensive about his own plans. Politico is trying to convince people not to support a dark man who can be easily confused by his own plans for president and this was the picture that they chose to do that effectively.

Analysis:

The first filter in Chomsky's theory, size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media, perhaps is the most important filter for these news sources. The fact that CNN, Fox, the Star Tribune, and Politico are all still functioning clearly shows that they are part of this filter. If these news outlets were producing anything that their advertisers or consumers didn't want then they would not still be functioning in such the large capacity that they are currently. Even Politico, which is a smaller newspaper, must stay within their own area of comfort or else they would not be here. Perhaps the only outlet that doesn't fall under this filter would be the National Review. The National Review claims to have lost millions of dollars since its first publication. The National Review tries to keep credibility by claiming that they only receive enough money from donations to stay afloat. Although, these donations from individuals are outside their corporations, the money was stilled earned by large corporations and directly influence the publication and, if necessary, the “flak” if the National Review does not stay in step with the donators ideals. The second filter fits within this context as well because of newspapers and magazines in particular, as well as T.V. networks, relay almost primarily on advertising to stay up and running and to make profit as well. The mass amount of media available nowadays makes it easy for a company to simply find a new place to advertise if they are not content with the message or news that you are reporting. So, all of these companies must stay within that context if they are to keep their source of income. The third filter is sourcing mass-media news and fits perhaps most interestingly into all of these outlets. This fits well with all of these outlets. Nowadays, with everyone wanting news as soon as it happens almost every news outlet doesn't do their own reporting, which can be seen in all of these outlets. Even those who don't agree with Ron Paul and his campaign use Ron Paul's own statements and press releases, instead of going out and getting the information for themselves first hand. The National Review that likes to see itself as a private news outlet gets its information from the Ron Paul campaign press releases. So, we have to ask ourselves if news outlets that cover such a wide range as CNN, Fox, the Star Tribune, the National Review, and Politico all filter their news based on profits, what their advertisers want, and get all of their information from the same places, are we really getting news from these places or are we simply hearing a narration of press releases that is skewed to fit what advertisers and consumers want to hear and see. Is it news or narration?