John Stewart said it best so if you are just traipsing randomly around the internet and only have a couple of minutes to spend on this subject, click on the link.
Then, I was reading some geezeron the Huffington Poop this
Yes, he's nuts, but at least he's consistent
morning who took the opposite tack. He said that the media was finally doing their job in ignoring Ron Paul, because it’s the media’s job to act as a “filter,” filtering out the non-serious candidates. Nonsense. The media gave boatloads of coverage to Donald Trump, they give coverage to Stephen Colbert’s mock candidates, they constantly speculate over whether or not Caribou Barbie will jump into the race, and yet by ignoring Ron Paul, who placed a very close second in the Ames Straw Poll, they are suddenly doing their job?
No, it was blatantly biased reporting and they finally got called out on it. It reminds me a great deal of the New York Times sitting on the illegal wiretap story until after the 2004 elections and then justifying that decision by saying it might have “adversely impacted” the elections. Meaning John Kerry might have won.
Filtering means making a decision as to what stays in and what stays out. Of course, newspapers are a filter for information. But that filter should be based on some objective criteria, like which candidate is getting the most support, or giving the best speeches, or something other than just “We report what we decide to report.”
www.gurukalehuru.com 
When I was at the Iowa State Fair on Friday some Ron Paul supporter was walking through the Midway with a young boy of 15 or so who was carrying a beach umbrella covering him from the sun.
I thought perfect exploitation of youth labor.
I also note all the illegal signs in Des MOines, stickers attached to speed limit signs, stop signs, posters nailed to the telephone poles are all Ron Paul. Shows the caliber of his supporters–LAWBREAKING individuals who are promoting their own fascist brownshirts.