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.