With the U.S. mainstream media failing to cover the 2008 Bilderberg Meeting that took place this past weekend, it has become obvious that they are simply not interested in covering real news. When hundreds of entertainers got together for the 2008 MTV Movie Awards, there were all sorts of articles and press coverage on this event when in reality it has very little significance to the lives of average Americans. With that said, it is incredible that when over a hundred of the most powerful people in Europe and North America got together in Chantilly Virginia for the Bilderberg Meeting, we see a complete media blackout. This was despite the fact that a press release from the American Friends of Bilderberg was made available announcing the event. Jack Shafer over at Slate Magazine, appeared to go against the grain and wrote an article on the Bilderberg Meeting. On my radio show, I actually gave Mr. Shafer credit for at least providing some sort of coverage on the Bilderberg Meeting. In fact, he even referenced a previous article I wrote on the media blackout of Bilderberg in his news piece. However, after reading Mr. Shafer’s article in its entirety, it becomes clear that the intent of his piece is to marginalize the significance of the annual Bilderberg Meeting and to defend the mainstream media’s failure to cover it.

Slate Magazine is owned by the Washington Post which is a newspaper currently headed up by Donald E. Graham who just happened to have attended the 2008 Bilderberg Meeting. How can we expect Mr. Shafer’s article to be free of bias and spin when the man who is in charge of Slate Magazine and the Washington Post happens to be a Bilderberg attendee?

Look at what Mr. Shafer says as he comes to the defense of the mainstream press.

And about this, too, the Bilderberg critics are right: The meeting of 120 prominent world figures probably constitutes some kind of news. Yet to be fair to the mainstream press, it's tough to report from a private gathering locked down tight by professional security.

How is it tough to report on the Bilderberg Meeting? Web sites like InfoWars.Com, PrisonPlanet.Com and RogueGovernment.Com managed to provide extensive coverage on the Bilderberg Meeting without seeing what was going on inside the hotel. The fact that you have over a hundred of the most powerful people in one location with armed security guards and spooks running around everywhere in of itself is news. How about the fact that there were over a hundred protesters outside of the meeting shouting at the Bilderberg attendees through bullhorns? That is also a news story. Reporters don’t even need to attend the meeting or get specifics on what’s actually happening in the meeting to write a news article. In fact, Mr. Shafer proved you don’t need to be on the inside to write about Bilderberg with his own article.

Mr. Shafer continues in his defense of the mainstream press.

And yet the "mainstream press" can hardly be accused of blacking out Bilderberg. The New York Times has mentioned Bilderberg a couple dozen times since 1981, according to Nexis, including in a 2004 piece titled "A Secret Conference Thought To Rule the Word." Other pieces in the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and the Boston Globe refer to the group. Just last month, Anne-Marie Slaughter mentioned the Bilderbergers in her Post review of a new book, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making.

Of course, Bilderberg critics don't want to read mentions in the press. They want to see confirmation of their theories that the group operates in a sinister, behind-the-scenes fashion to exploit the powerless and throttle liberty.

How, exactly, are reporters supposed to do that when the critics rarely provide falsifiable evidence of Bilderberg malevolence? Would a shadow government, should it exist, really convene annually at a hotel to hash out the world's fate? Would it really issue a press release about its latest meeting? Would it routinely assume the security risks of inviting new blood in? (Couldn't the notorious Bilderberger Conrad Black negotiate his way out of prison by exposing the group? Or is Bilderberg so powerful that it controls the federal prison system, too?) It largely limits its attendees to North Americans and Europeans. Are the Japanese, Indians, Chinese, Brazilians, Australians, South Koreans, and Singaporean so timid that they stand aside and let the Bilderbergers have their way with the world without making a peep?

There certainly has been some coverage of the Bilderberg Meeting by the U.S. mainstream media. Nobody is denying that. The problem with these reports is that Bilderberg is mentioned in two to three paragraph stories buried in the back of a newspaper, or are mentioned in a context that serves to demonize independent researchers and journalists who cover this yearly meeting as kooks or conspiracy theorists. What happened in Chantilly Virginia was an incredibly big news story and there’s no doubt that it was intentionally censored by the mainstream press. This is the first time that a press release was issued by Bilderberg and not one mainstream news outlet even picked up the press release. That defies comprehension considering the type of people who were attending.

Independent researchers and journalists are merely pointing out the fact that U.S. citizens and in particular those who hold public office are in violation of the Logan Act by attending secret meetings where policy is shaped and formed. The American people have a right to know how policy is being steered and meetings like Bilderberg remove transparency from the process. U.S. citizens should not be participating in secret meetings where powerful people from foreign nations are admittedly talking about a wide spectrum of geopolitical issues. Those who attend Bilderberg do not have full control over the planet as Mr. Shafer suggests, but they are certainly some of the more powerful individuals in Europe and North America and have the ability to shape the world by coming to a consensus on certain issues. Does Mr. Shafer honestly believe that some of the most powerful people in the world get together just to have a friendly chat? Jim Tucker from the American Free Press has covered the Bilderberg Meeting for decades and has made accurate predictions about the future based upon his sources within Bilderberg. With that said, there is little doubt that agendas and policies are formed at this meeting.

Mr. Shafer also compares the Council on Foreign Relations which previously maintained an incredible amount of secrecy with the Bilderberg Meeting.

Without a doubt, Bilderberg ends up stimulating speculations that it's a nefarious organization. In an earlier generation, some theorists regarded the Council on Foreign Relations as a similar shadow government for its furtive ways. But as the CFR opened up in recent decades, holding many sessions on the record, it has become as threatening as the World Economic Forum at Davos.

What Mr. Shafer doesn’t mention is that the so called conspiracy theorists were right about the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Instead of talking about globalization and the destruction of U.S. national sovereignty in secret, they now talk about it openly. This is not a good thing even if they are open with their disgust for what this country is supposed to stand for. Despite its flaws, the U.S. Constitution guarantees individual liberty. The globalists simply do not factor in individual liberty when they write their policy papers. Even though he was not on the official 2008 Bilderberg attendee list, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass was spotted at the recent Bilderberg Meeting. The CFR has written documents that have in fact become U.S. policy so they do operate as a secretive policy arm for the U.S. government. Many policy proposals that have come from the CFR have been crafted into legislation or are implemented by the executive branch. A perfect example of this is the Building a North American Community document which became the blue print for the Security and Prosperity Partnership that was agreed upon by Canada, Mexico and the U.S. back in 2005. Not only that, but the majority of the 2008 presidential candidates were either associated or were members of the CFR regardless of party. The vast majority of Americans simply do not agree with the various agendas that are pushed by the CFR. In fact most Americans would probably consider the CFR to be a nefarious organization. There is little doubt in the view of many considering what the CFR talks about, that the CFR is an organization run and driven by anti-American traitors.

In addition, Mr. Shafer needs to understand that for years, people have been harassed and threatened in their attempts to cover the Bilderberg Meeting. Why would people harass and threaten researchers who simply want to know the truth about what is going on at this supposedly friendly meeting? Obviously, somebody has something to hide otherwise these sort of intimidation tactics would not be directed at people who are just trying to report the facts.

Fortunately, some foreign media outlets have picked up the Bilderberg story. The Epoch Times did a big write up on the Bilderberg Meeting and some of the articles written by the alternative media have started to spring up in a greater number of mainstream blogs. There simply is no excuse for the mainstream press not covering an event as big as the Bilderberg Meeting. The lack of mainstream press coverage is just more proof that they should not be trusted to provide the full truth about what is going in the world.