Why Does The MSM Ignore Ron Paul?

Will Wilkinson compares the libertarian's media coverage to Michele Bachmann's:

She's a photogenic embodiment of a certain polarising brand of conservatism that makes good copy and great TV. By contrast, Ron Paul is a goofily avuncular non-comformist ideologue who speaks unutterable truths about American foreign policy and delivers incessant indignant harangues about the monetary system that approximately no one in the media understands. I think Mr Paul's influence on the ideological cast of American conservatism has been underestimated and underreported, but to take even his influence, if not his candidacy, more seriously would require the talking haircuts and the newspaper typing corps to wrestle with a charged set of geopolitical and economic topics they would rather continue helping Americans not understand.

A-fucking-men. Look: if you want to understand where Rick Perry's know-nothing anti-Fed bullshit comes from, why not actually read Paul's arguments, rather than pretend he doesn't exist? Why not tease out how his foreign policy springs directly from his libertarian premises – and challenges the military-industrial complex more effectively than anyone since Eisenhower? Why not interview him more regularly? He's great TV actually – because complete sincerity is always good TV.

Kevin Drum insists that the biggest difference between Bachmann and Paul is "Paul has already run before." Bernstein adds two cents. Earlier thoughts on the Ron Paul media blackout here and here.