So, did ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN publicize Rand Paul's filibuster?

[Little-Acorn]

Rand Paul stood up and talked for 13 hours straight in the Senate yesterday. Short as filibusters used to go, but he tried.

The purpose of such a filibuster is, of course, to bring all Senate business to a halt, trigger loads of special media attention, and cause outrage in a public that usually pays no attention to the Senate.

But the key part is, of course, triggering loads of media attention. With a normal media who takes their job (telling the truth) seriously, that would happen automaticlly. But for the media we have today, it might be VERY problematic.

Fox News talked about the filibuster. Did ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN? Anybody watch them yesterday?

I didn't watch them. But since Paul's purpose was to point out inadequacies and unconstitutionality of Barack Obama's policies, it wouldn't surprise me if they carefull did not schedule any coverage of it, and spent time instead on breathless reports of the sex of Jessica Simpson's baby, Day 32 of testimony from that girl who stabbed her boyfriend 32 times, etc.

Did they?

[jimnyc]

Thank God for the internet! (or is that Al Gore?)

[Kathianne]

Rand Paul stood up and talked for 13 hours straight in the Senate yesterday. Short as filibusters used to go, but he tried.

The purpose of such a filibuster is, of course, to bring all Senate business to a halt, trigger loads of special media attention, and cause outrage in a public that usually pays no attention to the Senate.

But the key part is, of course, triggering loads of media attention. With a normal media who takes their job (telling the truth) seriously, that would happen automaticlly. But for the media we have today, it might be VERY problematic.

Fox News talked about the filibuster. Did ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN? Anybody watch them yesterday?

I didn't watch them. But since Paul's purpose was to point out inadequacies and unconstitutionality of Barack Obama's policies, it wouldn't surprise me if they carefull did not schedule any coverage of it, and spent time instead on breathless reports of the sex of Jessica Simpson's baby, Day 32 of testimony from that girl who stabbed her boyfriend 32 times, etc.

Did they?

Sort of weird that you'd ask this, without linking to the threads that demonstrate the effect he had. But never mind, you never do. Sort of like you never acknowledge those that justifiably disagree with you conclusions occasionally.

[fj1200]

Sort of weird that you'd ask this, without linking to the threads that demonstrate the effect he had. But never mind, you never do. Sort of like you never acknowledge those that justifiably disagree with you conclusions occasionally.

Careful, we might have to break this into another thread.

[avatar4321]

Some did. Most of them buried the story unfortunately.

[Little-Acorn]

Sort of weird that you'd ask this, without linking to the threads that demonstrate the effect he had.
What does that have to do with whether ABC/CBS etc. covered it?


But never mind, you never do.
Of course not. As you know, I dislike hijacking threads onto unrelated subjects. Anyone who wants to talk about that instead, is free to start his own thread and talk to his heart's content.


Sort of like you never acknowledge those that justifiably disagree with you conclusions occasionally.
Would you like me to post links to posts that show otherwise?

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, I noticed CNN mention Paul's filibuster this evening.

[Abbey Marie]

ABC mentioned it last night, in a light-hearted way.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/ca031513dBP20130313044519.jpg