BBC does a long piece on disaster in Venezuela--without ever mentioning "socialism"

If a Mainstream Media outlet ran a story on, say, the problems caused by people camping on the sidewalks of San Francisco or Seattle, without saying a single word about the huge role of drug addiction in causing that problem, would you think they were doing honest reporting?  Or would you think maybe they were in the tank for a drug cartel?

Similarly, if a Mainstream Media outlet ran a story on the horrible, awful situation in Venezuela--which just 20 years ago had a higher per-capita income than the U.K. but now is a total disaster--and the story never mentioned "socialism" as the major cause, what would you think?

I think the only conclusion one can draw is that the organization that ran the story wants you to believe the election of a socialist (communist) president, followed by 20 years of amazingly, insanely dumb socialist policies, had nothing to do with their current problems.

If you doubt any media outlet would be so...mendacious...click here to read the BBC's story titled

Venezuela: The country that has lost three million people

In 3000 words the BBC totally avoids using the words "socialism" or "socialist."

Gee, that's...odd.  Until you realize:  The virtue-signalling editors and reporters in the MSM love socialism, and never miss a chance to praise it, or to ignore its disasters.

Yet the constantly tell you to trust them--and only them--to learn about things happening around you.  Cuz they constantly tell you they're the source of truth.  If they don't tell you something, you shouldn't believe it happened.  Uh-huh.

Skeptical?  Click on the link to the BBC story.  Down at the bottom is a link reading "Why you can trust BBC News."  Click it and you'll see this:

The BBC is recognised by audiences...around the world as a provider of news that you can trust.  Our website, like our TV and radio services, strives for journalism that is accurate, impartial, independent and fair.

"A provider of news you can trust," eh?

We are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly or materially misleading our audiences.

This is almost beyond parody.  If I hadn't read it on their own damn website I wouldn't have believed it.  They ran a long article on Venezuela's woes and never mentioned socialism as the main cause.

Our commitment to impartiality is at the heart of that relationship of trust. In all our output we will treat every subject with an impartiality that reflects the full range of views.

Well, unless it reflects badly on a cause we support, like socialism, transgenders, open borders, unilateral disarmament, imprisoning citizens for "hate speech," Sharia law, endless welfare for Islamic "immigrants" with four wives and 26 kids, among others.

Research shows that, compared to other broadcasters, newspapers and online sites, the BBC is seen as by far the most trusted and impartial news provider in the UK.

This is called "bandwagon effect:"  They claim "research shows" they're "by far the most trusted," because if you accept that, they know the vast majority of people will want to go along with the "cool kids" and trust them too.

BBC News is making even greater efforts to explain what type of information you are reading or watching on our website.... By doing so we can help you judge for yourself why BBC News can be trusted.

Notice how they phrased the conclusion above:  Not "we can help you judge whether we're telling you the truth," but stating the conclusion you are to reach: "why BBC News can be trusted."  If you think that's splitting hairs you need to study psychology.

This same drumbeat of "Trust us, trust us, trust us" is happening here in the U.S.  The fake-news outlets keep telling you they're the only source you can trust.  Like CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, Google and so on.  Yet they constantly lie.  Which is why they have to keep telling you how impartial they are, and that you should trust them.

How much more proof do you need?  That's okay, don't answer.  It was a rhetorical question.