Decades ago, before the internet, when your local radio stations and newspapers paid for service to a special machine that constantly churned out stories from stringers and main branches, there was a saying that I no longer remember but went something like, "Associated Press gets the story first; United Press gets it right."

We never doubted that AP/UP/Reu/(etc.) were feeding most the news. The sources were right there in print.

It is good to remind people that while there are an endless number of websites, most news still comes from a handful of sources. I will even agree that our sources are all biased.

That said there are some stories where bias should be expected; where there aren't really two sides. Example: "Locals outraged by villian's kicking puppies!" Good reporting might include the reasoning, but the public is not going to side with the puppy-kicker. Surely there was a better way to handle the situation before it got to that.

The public does not side with Hitler, either. Personally, I am thankful that the larger public has been 'brainwashed' into thinking Hitler was 'bad'. It saddens me that there are Nazis (or neo-Nazis) in countries that fought to end that vile cause. The citizenry should know better. More than that, the citizenry should know that all autocrats are bad. Any benevolent dictator is still mortal and will cede the position to someone else, and it won't be long before the 'someone else' is not benevolent.

So: thank you for posting the link reminding everyone to be critical of all news sources, but also remember that some things are fairly reported. Sometimes a point of view is valid. Sometimes there is an actual solid truth that is being told. Yes, sometimes that truth is getting sensationalized, but that doesn't it make it less true.

For this particular case, I will re-iterate that I am worried about potential strife. If my family was living in Venezuela, I would want a stable and well funded government without corruption and without dictatorship. I don't think the people had that as a ballot option, and I don't trust any of the players. I do miss Chavez, though. The U.S. gave him a raw deal.

So if I have read correctly both links talk about the same (the main source for the Cato article is the report from Carl Bernstein) and they state that some reporters that worked at some point in their lives at the Associated Press were tied to the CIA like 50 years ago.

I mean, sure the CIA and other goverment agencies from different countries sure have an interest in deposing Maduro; but claiming that this coverage from AP is propagand (which stance is very much the same as other non-westie sources) is blissful in itself.

I just love it when someone posts propaganda and then goes into their own thread attempting to discredit everyone else as propaganda.