There have been a lot of posts recently about unfairness in the media toward Ron Paul, so I'll shed some light since it seems a lot of people don't understand what Ron Paul stands for and what Libertarianism is.
The original US constitution and Bill of Rights is the probably the closest any society has come to the Libertarian ideal. Libertarianism is about negative rights, meaning that nobody can stop you from doing something that does not infringe upon the rights of someone else. Most of the bill of rights are examples of negative rights, freedom of speech and religion, gun rights, etc. There are no positive rights in Libertarianism, which are entitlements, such as the right to education, healthcare, basic needs (welfare, unemployment), equal opportunity, etc.
Libertarianism believes that the morals of people and the free market will fill those positive rights, that private schools and healthcare will be better than public, that the wealthy will take care of people who fall on hard times, that the magic of the free market will prevent monopoly from controlling it.
Well, after 250 years the American political landscape has come far from it's Libertarian ancestor. Social programs, anti-trust laws, public education and utilities have have given entitlements to the people. Ron Paul and other Libertarians believe that the US needs to go BACK to strict constitutionalism, BACK to the way things were in America 250 years ago. So you need to ask yourself, are we worse off now then we were 250 years ago? If libertarianism and the free market work then why was there a civil war? Why where the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts passed? Why did FDR create the New Deal? America has spent 250 years tweaking its politics to make it better and to keep it current, why would you destroy all that work? Only if you think that America was truely a better society 250 years ago.
Finally, I'll say again that a Libertarian would be completely opposed to the government forcing a TV or radio station to give a candidate equal air time. Ron Paul himself would say that he has no positive right to equal air time, and that the station has the right, without intervention, to pursue their best profit by talking about only the candidates that will draw the most ratings. Any supporter of Ron Paul who complains about his media coverage does not understand what he stands for.