Ever wonder what the media in the U.S. and Venezuela have in common? Quite a lot, as a matter of fact.
The media in both the U.S.A. and Venezuela are house organs for their respective administrations. Both report exactly what their presidents want them to report. Both extoll the virtues of their fearless leaders. Neither would ever report anything controversial, or defamatory, or even accurate, so long as that tidbit of accuracy could detract in the least from the glorius plans and strategies of Obama/Chavez.
There is a difference, however. In Venezuela, Chavez has achieved his hegemony over the media via the force of arms. He's nationalized the media, ousting management of radio and TV stations that didn't toe the company line. He's jailed dissident reporters and columnists who refused to kowtow to his dictates. It's reported he's "disappeared" many former critics who failed to fall into line with his Marxist revolutionary views. In short, in Venezuela you either report what Chavez wants you to or you never report again. Or in some cases do anything again, for that matter.
In the U.S. it's the same, but just a little different. Our fawning, sycophantic media so love this transformational, post-partisan, water-walking messiah that they would rather stab themselves in the eye with a #2 Ticonderoga than to report something - anything - that could be construed as even remotely negative. Were they to do so they'd lose their invitation to Beltway cocktail parties. No, they must only report the news that casts an aura of Heaven-sent goodness on our new president. And the reason they do so is because that's the way they were trained. The profs at our vaunted J-schools are nothing more nor less than aging, tie-died, summer-of-love, Haight-Ashbury hippies straight from the sixties. And the minions they've puked forth over the years to guard our freedoms as members of the fourth estate are for the most part their polished, brainwashed progeny. Only now they have patches on the sleeves of their tweed jackets, sip lattes and drive Volvos. Any wonder why the news we get via the media is only the news they want us to know? The New York Times' century-old motto is "All the news that's fit to print." It should be changed to "Some of the news we've carefully selected that benefits the liberal agenda and allows us to pretend to be unbiased, but just between ourselves we know better...wink, wink."
Need proof? Last April 15th the very first Tea Party was held on the Mall in Washington, D.C. ABC reported that "several hundred" showed up. NBC reported that "...estimates of as many as 7,500 were in attendance." The London Mail reported the party drew somewhere between 1 - 1.5 million. Either the Brits can count better than our vaunted journalists, or their agenda was to diminish the protest by minimizing the turnout. Even on 3/27/10 when a Tea Party was convened in Searchlight, NV to excoriate Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the Senate, the old media reported the turnout as follows: NBC = "Several dozen." ABC = "Up to several hundred." Actual attendance? Somewhere between 8 - 9,000. There are hundreds of other examples I could draw upon to make my case, but you already know the truth; dinosaur media bias is rampant. And it's not going to change until its purveyors run out of customers to watch their newscasts and buy their newspapers.
Last week during Anderson Cooper's evening news hour it was reported that 25,000 in a key demographic were watching. 25,000 in the whole of America! We're well on our way...