Since so many in the media missed the point of the tea party protests, or intentionally misled their viewers and readers about them, or (like the New York Times) tried to pretend they didn't take place, I'll explain what they meant and what we should have learned from them.

The tea party protests showed that there are many people across the country (in all 50 states) that are not satisfied with the kind of "change" the election of the Obama administration brought them. We learned that liberals only believe exercising freedom of speech and questioning the government is patriotic when it is done to protest a Republican president.

We learned that when liberal unions bus people to protests and when some liberal groups even pay people to protest, the media does not deem that influence worth reporting. But if a cable news channel decides to cover (and promotes that they will cover) a protest with hundreds of thousands of participants taking place in all 50 states that should be reported as evidence the people were not protesting of their own accord.

We learned that followers of the new administration, including those in the media, do not know what to think of the tea parties, but they understand enough to know they are something for liberals to fear. In their so-called reporting of the events the media provided irrefutable evidence of extreme bias. If there is any doubt, all one has to do is look at how the coverage of the tea party protests compares to coverage of Cindy Sheehan and the Code Pink anti-war protests.

Maybe conservative protesters learned they should have engaged in violence, made a big mess and showered less. That formula seems to draw great media coverage for liberal protests. Or maybe they learned to just keep plugging away and that eventually word will get out, as it is now, slowly but surely. Fox News is not only the number one cable channel, but it recently drew bigger numbers than its competitors, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News combined. The New York Times and many of the other major daily newspapers that gave the protests little or no coverage, are suffering and may not survive much longer in their current forms.

The news organizations and individual reporters who worked hardest to ignore or disparage the tea party protesters might be in for a harsh backlash. Instead of discouraging the protesters, the shabby treatment only confirmed what they already knew about media bias and in the process the liberal media showed that bias clearly enough for even those who pay just passing attention to politics to see. I suspect it also made most of the protesters even more determined to spread their message by any means available to them.

If the Tea Party Movement continues to grow beyond the recent protests, expect more confusion from those attempting to report it. Except for some pro-life protests, I don't recall any time conservatives have felt a need to take their grievances "to the street" on such a wide scale. This one might take quite a bit longer for those in the media to understand.