‘Liberal’ — to a point

The so-called liberal media in the U.S. — most notably the New York Times, the Washington Post and some television news sources — profess independence. But they dare not offend their ruling-class owners on key international issues.

Take, for example, the “reporting” we are handed each day on three important oil-producing countries: Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

How often are we told that the Venezuelan opposition (which is now in disarray) arose out of a lack of “democracy” and “fraudulent” elections in that country? These phrases are repeated again and again, not just by the openly right-wing media here, but by those claiming objectivity.

They fail to mention the literally dozens of elections that have taken place in Venezuela since the movement led by Hugo Chávez took power in 1998 — through an election. Nor do they seem to remember that the right wing of the Venezuelan military kidnapped Chávez in 2002, but he was rescued by a mass mobilization of the Venezuelan people. The U.S. government a month ago, with the help of the corporate media, was hoping to instigate the military against President Nicolás Maduro, but this time it didn’t happen.

How often are we told that the Iranian people are ruled over by a dictatorial theocracy? The imperialist media make no mention of the horrors carried out by their predecessor, the bloody Shah, who was installed by a CIA coup in 1953. A creature of the U.S. oil companies, he was overthrown in a popular revolution in 1979. That revolution led to the current government.

Venezuela and Iran are now considered “enemies” of the U.S.

But not Saudi Arabia.

Right now, the U.S. military is providing logistical and material support for Saudi Arabia’s genocidal bombing of Yemen, a small country facing famine and genocide at the hands of this bloody Saudi/U.S. war.

Even when reporting on this ghastly situation, do the liberal media here remind their audience that Saudi Arabia is politically a total dictatorship of the Saud royal family? That 700 princes control the whole economy and politics of the state? That there are no elections in Saudi Arabia? And that these theocratic princes have a great relationship with the government of the United States?

Take a look at the Wikipedia entry on Saudi Arabia and scan down to a  discussion of the royal family. There is a photograph taken in 1985. Click on it and you’ll see a lovely picture of Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump looking on as Ivana Trump shakes hands with King Fahd at the White House. Ivana has been replaced, but the reactionary international policies dictated by U.S. big business remain.

Why don’t the Times, the Post, NPR and others mention that?