Ron Paul is winning state delegate majorities and is getting massive turnouts at rallies:
. . . and yet there’s been nothing but radio silence from the mainstream media on this phenomenon. Many disgruntled Americans have gone so far as to resort to conspiracy theories in an attempt to explain the MSM’s behavior – and considering the massive amount of existing evidence of the media’s blatant bias I cannot say that I blame them.
But I don’t believe in any nationwide media conspiracy. I believe that the mainstream media is astoundingly biased and largely incompetent but I think that the reason Ron Paul gets so little coverage is because big media outlets only see what they want or expect to see. Robin Koerner explains:
To those who care about such things, the silence of the media about the extraordinary events around Ron Paul’s campaign is deafening.
Some see conspiracy. I don’t. I see the expected reaction to a paradigm shift — a complete change in the concepts we use to make sense of our politics and culture.
An excellent illustration of the power of a “paradigm” is the Perceptions of Incongruity experiment that was conducted at Harvard in 1949.
In this experiment, subjects were shown playing cards and asked to call out what they saw. They would consistently identify the cards correctly. After a while, however, the experimenters would slip in “incongruous cards” in which the colors red and black were switched, such as black hearts or diamonds and red clubs or spades.
What did the subjects see when shown those incongruous cards? They did not see the incongruous cards, but normal playing cards — the cards they were expecting to see, without noticing the incongruity. For example, when shown a black six of hearts, they might call out simply “six of hearts” or “six of spades” — neither of which was correct. The subjects didn’t misunderstand or misinterpret anything — they actually misperceived something according to the paradigm in which they were operating — in this case, “the playing card paradigm,” comprising everything they already knew (wrongly) about the cards they were looking at.
Subjects continued to fail to notice the incongruous cards. Eventually, they would exhibit a physiological reaction of discomfort, knowing that something was wrong, but not being conscious of what. Only when they had been forced to look at many incongruous cards for very long times did they “get” what was going on and see what they were looking at. Suddenly, they realized that “the playing card paradigm” did not apply. They finally knew that reality included non-traditional cards. They thus adopted a new paradigm (that included black hearts etc.), and thereafter saw what was in front of their eyes.