Readers may have noticed that I am watching, and blogging, about the Ron Paul campaign with more than a little interest. The campaign could have serious consequences for the pursuit of liberty worldwide and, I hope, they could even be positive consequences. I differ from Yaron Brook in this, feeling that a culture that is halfway objectivist is worth having and the possible issues likely to be easier to deal with, however, this is not the topic I want to pick up right now.

Instead, I’d like to reflect on the suspicion of paranoia I remember having when hearing from Ron Paul supporters that their man was actively blocked from the media. I don’t, any longer, have any such suspicion. I still feel that the conspiracy/fear explanation is not fully supportable but they certainly aren’t imagining it are they? Here’s an amusing example, courtesy of one outlet that gave the issue it’s due:

Here in the UK, even the estimable Jeff Randall managed to get through 15 minutes of talking about New Hampshire, the day ahead of the poll without mentioning Ron Paul. Of course he is not obliged to mention every candidate but there was something distinctly wrong with what he did cover. He mentioned Mitt Romney as likely winner, then conducted an interview with Rick Santorum himself who, quite reasonably, predicted a “best possible” second or likely third or maybe even fourth place for himself. Jeff then spectacularly failed to ask, or even to guess at, who might be predicted to take second if it were not Santorum. We now know that ultimately, of course, Rick Santorum placed fifth and Ron Paul scored a convincing second. The sole mention of Ron Paul in the whole piece was when he flashed up as an animated caricature on the screen of the Sky News’ iPad application in an advert at the end of the show. Are we supposed to believe that Jeff’s team had not a single clue, the day ahead of the poll, that the actual result is the one that might have occurred?

Astonishing.