In a wild Hardball on Wednesday, MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews spent the latter portion of the program defending the Green New Deal, expressing dismay at Republicans for “mak[ing] fun of” the proposal seeking to address the dangers “we're facing as a species” because of climate change, and defending murderous Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro because National Security Adviser John Bolton isn’t a fan.
On two consecutive editions of Hardball, MSNBC host Chris Matthews offered concerns Tuesday and Wednesday night about the Trump administration’s decision to recognize Venezuela opposition leader Juan Guaido as the interim president and level sanctions against the murderous Nicolas Maduro regime, applying further pressure to the failed socialist utopia.
Yet another long New York Times article on the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela spared no space for the “S-word,” -- socialism -- that is the root cause of the country’s woes. William Neuman and Clifford Krauss devoted 1,700 words on the front of Friday’s edition to one facet of the country’s woes: "Job at Oil Giant Is No Longer Path to the Venezuelan Dream.” The absence of the actual cause of Venezuela’s human tragedy – authoritarian socialism – is par for the course for the paper, as demonstrated on Newsbusters again and again.
Venezuela's descent under Bolivarian socialist President and de facto dictator Nicolas Maduro has achieved yet another grim milestone. This time it's the return of polio, on top of other previously eradicated diseases including diphtheria, tuberculosis, measles, and malaria. The return of polio has caught the attention of some in the international press in the past few days, but only one of over a dozen related English stories found in early Monday afternoon Eastern Time Google News searches identified the nation or its leader as socialist. Also as of Monday afternoon, there was no coverage at major U.S. news outlets.
Wednesday, CNN presented yet another story about Venezuela's implosion which did a fine job of portraying that country's human misery, this time in the oil industry. Unfortunately, it was yet another example of a story failing to mention its socialist form of government or even its leader, President Nicolas Maduro. Though such omissions have long been routine in establishment press reports, reporter Stefano Pozzebon's were particularly galling, given that the governments of Maduro and especially Hugo Chavez, his Bolivarian socialist predecessor, are entirely responsible for Venezuela's oil collapse.
As Venezuela's socialism-driven disaster deepens, the press's unwillingness to recognize its cause has gone from being "merely" negligent and outrageous to absolutely disgusting. This obvious failure, which is almost certainly conscious and deliberate, is present even when a journalist's work portraying the human element of the crisis is otherwise compelling. Such is the case with Ernesto Londoño's Saturday report at the New York Times about how refugees fleeing that country are overwhelming the ability of towns in northern Brazil to handle them.
The New York Times’ abject refusal to pin the socialism label on the failed and starving state of Venezuela is well-documented (as is the paper’s whitewashing of that and other tyrannical left-wing regimes). In the newest Times Sunday Magazine, writer Wil S. Hylton devoted nearly 9,000 words to fiery, often-imprisoned opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, “Can Venezuela Be Saved?” yet managed to totally avoid the word “socialism,” the idea that formed the root of the country’s present failures.
As Venezuela plunges deeper into humanitarian crisis, the broadcast and cable networks barely recognize its existence, while the print press, which during relatively tolerable times routinely celebrated the country's socialist government, is more reluctant than ever to use the S-word. Of six articles I found Friday afternoon about the horrid, deteriorating situation in that country, only one used the word — and that was only because it was about snap elections de facto dictator Nicolas Maduro has called for April.
Any list of the year's most ignored news stories has to include Venezuela's frightening deterioration. This once reasonably prosperous South American nation is now in the grips of a brutal socialist de facto dictatorship which is moving inexorably to consolidate its control, accompanied by an utterly wrecked economy. Families cannot feed their children, and many are dying. The New York Times broke through the near-blackout on Sunday, but failed to mention the root cause of the nation's humanitarian catastrophe — socialism — until the third-last of over 100 paragraphs.
On Tuesday, Joshua Goodman of the Associated Press trumpeted that the economic "misery is likely to get even worse" in Venezuela due to new sanctions implemented by the Trump administration. Goodman acknowledged that the South American country is becoming "increasingly authoritarian," but didn't once describe the regime of President Nicolas Maduro as left-wing. He also cited an expert who asserted that possible additional sanctions might "throw Venezuela back to the stone ages."
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.