As the Ron Paul phenomenon gains momentum among Nigerians everywhere, there have been a few complaints about the coverage he gets in the mainstream media. The majority of these complaints have been lodged against Fox News, which is about as surprising as a blonde lingerie model managing to screw up a suicide attempt. (Important questions: How is that even possible? Is any stereotype as unprotected by political correctness as blondeness? Was that story referenced for the sole purpose of linking to a very large and very scantily-clad picture of said lingerie model?)

Some people, frequently referred to by on-air talking heads as "Internet lunatics" and similar derogatory e-labels, believe that Paul's anti-establishment message annoys Republican leadership enough for them to actively pull the strings that will keep television coverage of the Texas Congressman twisted and minimalized. They seem to have a case - but, given what could at least be described as moderate levels of success by the Paul campaign, the motive for any underhanded reporting becomes a bit less clear. Is Ron Paul simply a nuisance? Or might Republican leadership be worried that a large chunk of its base could be attracted to Paul's decidedly different brand of politics?

The magical world of the Internets makes this sort of analysis much more interesting, because not only do sites like YouTube allow for inspection of every second of Fox News' broadcasts (and who doesn't want to spend hour upon hour looking at the masterpiece of human genetics that is Neil Cavuto?), but they can also spread moments that were never intended to be recorded - such as this discussion amongst Fox producers that Paul's supporters claim proves bias against treating his candidacy with any sort of legitimacy. Is it enough? Or might the reason behind the subtitled comments be much more mundane? We report, you decide.