The coverage
of Ecuador and Correa could have been written by the State Department of either
the Bush or Obama administrations. It was completely shallow and biased toward
the American point of view.
The
adoration and adulation of Churchill was hardly 'liberal', critical or for that
matter even reflective. It was hagiographic and romantic.
The
Mainstream Media isn't liberal. It's Commercial which means that for the most
part it's going to be Establishment. If CNN wanted to get in a few jibes at the
forces of conservatism, they sure missed their chance.
As a
Christian and thus by definition Anti-Establishment, I would have rather seen
Correa given a voice and most importantly some context. There's a reason why he
speaks out against the United States. It's not because he's some ranting
'hater'. It has to do with geopolitics and oil. Apparently only Americans are
allowed to care about their country's interests.
And yes, as
shocking as it may sound to many, especially on the Right, not everyone is a
card-carrying member of the Churchill cult.
To not a few
he wasn't a wise elder-statesman and military strategist. He was more of a
bumbling buffoon and trouble maker. Militarily he was nothing less than a
disaster, never met a war he didn't like and made a great deal of trouble with
all of his schemes, plots and preference for subterfuge. To many he gave away
much of Europe, and frankly abandoned England's official reason for entering
the war... the protection of Poland's integrity. And then not long afterward
starting sabre-rattling once more helping to bring about the very Iron Curtain
he prophesied. His speech was not universally applauded.
He gave
flourishing demagogic speeches but apart from his rhetoric and marching about
and looking busy it can be questioned whether or not he did anything of lasting
value. Like de Gaulle he didn't actually accomplish much during the war other
than refusing to surrender. Unlike Churchill, de Gaulle accomplished a great
deal upon his return to power in 1958. But you won't hear de Gaulle praised in
American circles. He didn't toe the American line but he did put France first
and from the French standpoint was worthy of more praise than Winston Churchill.
He certainly had a greater influence. Britain's Empire is all but dead but the
Fifth Republic lives on.
Yes, I know
he was voted Greatest Briton of all time in 2002 but when you look at the
poll's results it's rather telling. A list that would rank Diana at #3, Darwin
at #4, and John Lennon at #8 tells us more about the people who participated
then it does about the supposed greatness of Churchill.
I understand
why the world admires this man but I am baffled as to why he was become such an
icon to Christians. Let's be honest, he was an old reprobate and idolater.
But CNN
wouldn't have dreamed of contextualizing or reflecting on his life. It was
hero-worship.
Sure,
they've got a sodomite as one of their chief anchors, I guess that makes them
liberal. But through and through CNN like most of the mainstream media has
proven to be little more than a joke. Amanpour? Give me a break.
