The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
For what it's worth, (which, given who invited Colbert to 'testify', may be "nothing at all"...), Colbert was theortetically (again, depending on which version of the story you read, and how accurate it is) not called to testify "in character" as it were, but rather on the basis of a document he had prepared which was (again, as I have read, I certainly wasn't there) quite different in nature and tone from the, well, performance he put on when he was actually in front of the committee.
On the gripping hand, I'm not sure it matters in the slightest if he was or not, or whether anything would have been even the tiniest bit different in outcome if instead of Colbert, it had been a shaved orangutan, screaming, gibbering, and throwing feces. Not, I must say, to compare Colbert to the orangutan, but simply to point out that I don't think the members of these committees care in the most infitessimal part what anyone tells them, having already made up their minds. Attempting to penetrate the osseous layers shielding their organs of discernment is, in my opinion, essentially pointless.
Which is rather orthogonal to your point, except insofar as... does it really matter? Even if they had reported on it, it's not like us knowing about it would have changed anything. Even if we knew and were in a high dudgeon, that department is staffed with career bureaucrats, impervious to such trivialities as voting.
Every time I saw the Colbert thing today I thought "bread and circuses."
" does it really matter? Even if they had reported on it, it's not like us knowing about it would have changed anything."
By burying this story, the MSM prevents us "proles" from hauling out the pitchforks, tar, and feathers to demonstrate our justified wrath against the guilty. If they let people know the truth, then the odds of a significant backlash against our "betters" (actually, lessers) becomes significantly greater than zero; a possibility they simply cannot allow. IMHO, people knowing about this open racism interfering with the most critical of civic duties would cause a backlash at the polls; possibly even violence against anyone even giving the appearance of attempting to suppress voters.
But... are we going to? Like I say, the bureaucracy is immune to voting, and we've shown over the course of the last 100 years that the tar, feathers, and pitchforks are pretty metaphorical.
"we've shown over the course of the last 100 years that the tar, feathers, and pitchforks are pretty metaphorical."
It's metaphorical until it isn't.
Exactly. You've heard of Liberation Theology? The governmental philosophy they're trying for here (so far as I can tell) is Liberation Theocracy. It's fantasy ideology. Agreement becomes piety, dissent becomes heresy. Taking issue with NOW, or ACORN, or the NAACP, or La Raza is wicked and sinful.
They'd never allow it to be called by those names of course, just as medieval churches would never have changed "tithing" to "extortion". But that doesn't change what the relationships are.
Journalists acquire importance in the mass democratic system precisely because they gather, convey, and interpret the data that inform individual choices.
"Tonight J-Lo wore a low-cut chenille silk blouse paired with ruffled chic mauve slacks..." Garbage, garbage, garbage. The fact that they also seem determined to reduce the value of their brand by repeatedly trumpeting useless tivialitites in the guise of "data" is pretty sad.
Sooo....a shorter description would be....they're progressives. This is right out of the description for the progressive movement of the early 20th century. "Let the smart people be in charge...and we're the smart people."