(NaturalNews) Some of the most intrepid investigative news outlets that have gone to great lengths and expense to expose injustice, right wrongs and shine a blinding light of scrutiny on a range of issues important to the constitutional preservation of our Republic will never be recognized, formally at least, for what they do.
Natural News, for example, has broken a number of stories regarding the dangers of GMOs, the chicanery of agri-giants Monsanto and Syngenta, the duplicity of government agencies that abuse their power in order to persecute homeowners and landowners trying to raise wholesome crops and livestock, and the health benefits of scores of supplements, super foods and spices.
Other news organizations -- WorldNetDaily, CNSNews.com, Mother Jones, the Washington Examiner, among many others -- have done yeomen's work in highlighting political injustices and government and bureaucratic overreach.
But because we, and they, are not a member of "the club" of "acceptable" media outlets -- namely, those that tend not to disrupt the status quo by picking "safe" stories and issues to cover -- tend to garner most of the industry accolades.
What? No coverage of the 'rest of the story?'
Sour grapes on our part? Perhaps -- we love to be recognized, as does everyone else. More than that, though, we feel like the failure of the "media establishment" to recognize anyone other than members of their club is doing the public a disservice, because after all, a free press isn't supposed to be a club; it's supposed to be a cornerstone of our representative democracy.
When the media elite pick and choose what they want to cover based on what dinner parties in the nation's capital they seek to be invited to, instead of serving as a watchdog for the people -- and then get rewarded for it -- the system has become corrupt.
Take the recent awards of the vaunted Pulitzer Prize to various "club" media outlets like Reuters, The Washington Post (a regular recipient), and The Boston Globe (another regular). Not one of these papers or news services spent much time at all covering the recent BLM attempt to grab land from multi-generational Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, even though there is a distinct connection to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and a Chinese solar company wanting to develop a plant in the area where Bundy runs his cattle [http://www.newsmax.com].
This is despite the fact that Reuters, for its part, did report in August 2012 that Reid and his son, Rory, were heavily involved in getting Chinese energy giant ENN "to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert."
But why no follow-up given the Bundy/BLM situation? What news editor doesn't seriously think that is pertinent now, given increased Chinese investment in U.S. commercial real estate in the past couple of years, given the fact that nothing happens in Nevada without Harry Reid knowing about it, and given the fact that the head of the BLM is Reid's former chief of staff?
Coincidences? Nothing in American politics is a coincidence. And so, it is no coincidence that the very media outlets so beholden to these politicians can't seem to find a story worthy of reporting in the Bundy case (except for the few offbeat sources that proclaim him as a guilty freeloader on federal lands, which is hardly the case).
So, what did Reuters win its Pulitzer for? "International reporting on the violent persecution of a Muslim minority in Myanmar," according to the news service. This, as opposed to, say, the "violent persecution" of the Christian minority in Sudan, or the "violent persecution" of scores of minorities all around the globe. Talk about arbitrary determining factors.
We're not about to give up on our mission
The Guardian US and The Washington Postwere each awarded the Pulitzer Prize for public service for their coverage of secret surveillance by the U.S. National Security Agency. Their reporting was based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who revealed details of global electronic surveillance by the U.S. spy agency.
The Boston Globe won for its breaking news coverage of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing and the ensuing manhunt. Finalists included The Arizona Republic for coverage of a wildfire that killed 19 firefighters and The Washington Post for coverage of the mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard.
The Snowden story was handed to those two publications, and while Americans may not have known the extent of government spying, most have certainly been aware that, for years, Uncle Sam has had his eye on us one way or another.
The Boston Marathon story was a given, though you'll notice the more conservative Boston Herald, which also provided "breaking news coverage" of the bombing, came up empty-handed.
One positive note to all of this: Not getting a prize from the establishment's media club won't mean that ours, and other great news sites, will give up on our mission to provide readers with vital information necessary to enhancing and preserving their personal freedom (and keeping government in check). That's what we're all supposed to be doing.