Are Clinton supporters getting a taste of what Ron Paul supporters have been battling with the media?

Question

With regards to all these statements in media (and on here!) that Hillary is pulling out when her campaign has made it clear she has made no such decision, is that reminiscent to any other Ron Paul supporters of the numerous times we were told he dropped out? And you keep posting and keep posting "no he has not!" only for clarifications to come only after people have voted?

I thought the press a couple of weeks ago about 'gee, look! Ron Paul is in the race! Why didn't any one say anything!' was just a tad disingenuous, personally.

I also think holding media accountable may be one of the benefits to arise from this campaign because so many have been treated to unfair reporting.

What do you think?

Do you have a difference of opinion about neutrality of media than you previously did?

Answer 1

with great respect for Ron Paul, the answer is NO.

There is no comparison between the support of Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul.

Neutral Media? Where have you found that? Fox News is the best and even they have some leanings. I have noticed CNN cleaning up their act in the last week. Maybe someone over there figured out they were supposed to report the facts, not make editorials and call it news.

Answer 2

I have always regarded the media with suspicion

I think the myth of a free and unbiased media is one of the greatest propaganda coups in history.

At least with an openly biased media we can allow for the BS factor.

One of the great problems with the news services today is they try to present themselves as neutral when they are anything but neutral.

Answer 3

The obvious difference is that Ron Paul was always a marginal candidate with only a few percentage points of support and hasn't come close to winning a primary.

Hillary (who I think would make a great president, by the way), has had tremendous support and has won many primaries.  

I don't see a similarity at all.