Open Letter to the Economist Magazine

Why does the Economist not devote more coverage to the impressive candidacy of Ron Paul?

Of all of the candidates running for office, Paul reflects most completely the views and attitudes of this newspaper. Does the Economist not have the courage to see its own convictions implemented as law? Or does it stand to profit more when its views are not represented in public life, giving it a chance to lambaste those in power in the manner of a highfalutin Fox News?

Every third party or “second tier” candidate is given a speck of attention at the outset of the campaign, but at the end of every interview, every reporter smugly asks the question, “Do you actually think you’ll win?”

The answer to this inevitable question is simply- “Well that depends on you- The Economist (or NPR, or the New York Times).” Will these media continue to simply throw the obligatory bone to the “lower tier” candidates to convince themselves they’re being balanced? Or will they devote serious column inches to serious ideas and compelling messages?

There exists (whatever the media itself may believe) both an upwards and a downwards spiral regarding media coverage: The more coverage a candidate gets, the more viability they appear to have as a candidate. The more viability they appear to have, the more money they raise. The more money they raise, the more coverage they get, etc.

The same is true on the losing side- witness the excellently credentialed Joe Biden and Chris Dodd from the Democratic side. Limited coverage implied limited viability. Limited viability resulted in fewer contributions. Fewer contributions resulted in less coverage. By the time they drop out, the media laughingly shake their heads at how silly such an endeavor was in the first place while wholly disowning the role their neglect played in the candidates’ failures.

Is it not time for the media, and one of its great leaders, The Economist, to admit that it plays a part in shaping candidates’ prospects? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton began the presidential race only steps away from the finish line. How is that possible considering there were nearly two dozen candidates running? Endless coverage is the answer of course- of financial contributions, of watery eyes, of youthful substance abuse, etc.

What baffles me is why this kind of neglect has befallen Ron Paul who has finished ahead of both Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in several races, placed (at least) second in two, and continues to raise unprecedented amounts of money over the internet. I am especially baffled since I can not imagine a candidate more in line with the positions weekly espoused by the Economist.

All I can think of is that the newspaper is squeamishly afraid of being made to look as silly as they portray Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel to be, or that they are somehow pleased to usher flawed, pandering, special-interest candidates into office in order to maintain reader interest. Or perhaps it is some sort of phony humility, believing that they are impartial arbiters with no direct bearing on the outcomes of elections.

None of these possibilities seems very likely (except perhaps the first), so I would ask that the newspaper indulge my curiosity with some real answers. And while you’re at it, give a serious nod, and not just a wink, to the candidate with the best platform in the race.

Sincerely,

[D-Blog]
New York City