Corporate media bias in favor of empire is more obvious than ever...
I normally don't even bother to watch corporate broadcast media political commentary and discussions. Jon Stewart and other bloggers do it for us. This time, Stewart has exposed the most ridiculous bias by corporate media pundits and reporters I've seen in my lifetime.
Stewart's exposure of the studied and snarky avoidance and dismissal of Ron Paul is worse than what occurred to Dennis Kucinich in 2008.
David Bernstein, whose post I linked to, asks why is the media ignoring Paul? First, let's remember, it's corporate owned media we're talking about here. Second, Stewart diagnoses the reason in his satiric laced commentary: Ron Paul is against the American wars of choice in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and God knows where else we send and hold our troops in other people's countries. And to the corporate media, that is simply too dangerous to even discuss.
The US corporate broadcast media is at least consistent in that it has pretended that Noam Chomsky does not exist, except an occasional reference to his being a far left loon. But here we have a candidate who is already a US Congressman, running for president, and who comes within 200 votes of winning the first official polling of Americans--in Iowa--and....is completely ignored by the commentators, and then ridiculed by a CNN anchor who is supposed to be reading news, not commenting.
My Dad often told me that in 1956, he was in Texas in the Air Force, and newspapers there would rarely refer to Adlai Stevenson by name. It was almost always "the President's opponent." I think we've reached that level of bias in this instance.