On Thursday, an Investor's Business Daily editorial cited a long list of news outlets which have recently covered the calamitous events in Venezuela, but which, in IBD's words, "continue to obfuscate, if not totally ignore" the fact that the country's implosion can be laid at the feet of one simple cause: "Socialism." One particularly appalling example exemplifying the paper's complaint came Saturday morning from NBC News.
As Nicholas Fondacaro at NewsBusters noted on Friday, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow's obsession with the money raised for President Donald Trump's inauguration went into overdrive the previous evening. During the same show, Maddow combined that obsession with another one shared by most of the news media — the absolute necessity to avoid blaming Venezuela's dire economic circumstances on its Bolivarian socialist form of government and its de facto dictator Nicolas Maduro — to come up with the most ridiculous reason imaginable as to why civil order in Venezuela has broken down.
As Venezuelan ruler Nicolas Maduro struggled against violent protests against him, the U.S. based company General Motors had its means of production seized by the socialist regime Thursday. “General Motors tonight saying it's been forced to suspend its operation in Venezuela after the government there confiscated its factory,” announced ABC Anchor David Muir during World News Tonight, “GM forced to lay off 2700 workers, but vowing to fight this tonight.” Sadly, CBS was the only network not to report the theft.
Even in the face of obvious failure, the liberal media deflect blame for Venezuela’s economic collapse away from socialism. On April 1, New York Times columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub blamed “populism” for Venezuela's issues, using the economic crisis there to explain the dangers of populism while essentially ignoring socialism’s impact. “Socialism” was mentioned just once in the entire article.
Almost fifteen years ago, South Park paid tribute to a trailblazing animated TV series by calling an episode “The Simpsons Already Did It.” According to Columbia Journalism Review columnist Joel Simon, regardless of the current hubbub over President Trump’s media-bashing, several “Latin American populist” heads of state, including the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, already did it, or something a lot like it, long before Trump dubbed certain MSM outlets “the enemy of the people,” a description he reaffirmed Friday morning in his speech at CPAC.
In a dramatic episode on Monday night, Quantico finally righted a colossal historical atrocity. They handed the White House to America’s first (unelected) female president. After watching terrorists murder his wife, President Todd resigns and hands the reigns to his far more qualified running mate, Vice President Claire Haas. But even before she can begin, Haas is besieged by doubters.
Is the United States doomed to become the latest global victim of a dangerous strongman, a la Venezuela under Hugo Chavez? That's what economics reporter turned left-wing columnist Eduardo Porter thinks in Wednesday’s New York Times: “How Dysfunction Threatens U.S. Democracy.” What led to this dramatic conclusion? Trump’s election. Porter made a rare Times admission of the “authoritarian” nature of the Communist rule of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, only to bash Trump as a similar threat to democracy.
The New York Times has treated the passing of Cuba’s Fidel Castro less as the death of a dictator than the dying of a revolutionary dream. Former Miami bureau chief Damien Cave’s off-lead story from Havana on Monday interviewed three generations of Cubans, but only came within glancing distance of the truth of the tyrannical leader, treating him more as an eccentric relative than a man who has jailed harassed and left impoverished three generations of his countrymen. In the past Cave has obsessed over hypothetical "income inequality" in a more capitalist, freedom-embracing Cuba.
William Finnegan's lengthy report from Venezuela in the November 14 edition of the New Yorker begs two obvious questions: Where have you guys been? And why did you wait until the wee hours on November 7, the day before Election Day in the U.S., when almost everyone's attention was on the presidential and other contests, to post it online?
The report's headline asks a question: "How did this happen?" Finnegan fails to satisfactorily answer it. Instead, he wants readers to believe that the country began an inexorable downhill slide many years before Hugo Chavez took over Venezuela's government and embarked on his Bolivarian socialist "revolution." It wasn't inevitable, but his telling of the story contains implicit warnings applicable to the U.S. which the magazine appears to have decided that its left-leaning readers didn't need to see before they voted.
Thursday evening, Venezuela's Bolivarian Socialist government arbitrarily suspended the recall effort against "President" Nicolas Maduro, demonstrating beyond any doubt that the South American country now functions as a dictatorship. Given its gravity, this news, described in coverage at the Wall Street Journal as "a crisis of democracy," is not getting the visibility it should be receiving.
The absurd headline at a September 20 story at the New York Times is a sight to behold: "How Bad Off Is Oil-Rich Venezuela? It’s Buying U.S. Oil."
As formulated, the headline is clearly meant to communicate something that is supposedly a surprising new development in that country, which, thanks to 17 years of Bolivarian socialist rule, has turned into a financially destitute humanitarian disaster area. But then, deep into the story, readers finally learn that "Early this year, the United States began shipping more than 50,000 barrels a day of the light crude that Venezuela needs to prepare its own oil for export, joining a handful of suppliers that have become vital to keeping the country’s oil industry afloat." In other words, this is only big news to Times readers because the Old Gray Lady didn't think it was worth reporting when it began happening.
Over two weeks ago, the Bolivarian socialist government of Venezuela under de facto dictator Nicolas Maduro decreed that private-sector and government workers can be forced to work on farms if the military, which is now responsible for food production and distribution in that shortage-wracked country, deems it necessary.
Relevant site searches indicate that the country's forced-labor decree still isn't news at the Associated Press or the New York Times. So it's disappointing, though sadly not surprising, that the AP, the Times, and for that matter the vast majority of the rest of the English language establishment press, has failed to report the frightening news that Maduro has hired Alfredo Serrano, a deeply committed Marxist, to be his next economic czar.