Why We're Covering Tea Party Protest

You might have heard we're going to be out in Sacramento a week from today to cover this tea party protest. You might also have heard a lot of other news organizations are not.

I know why we're there. I'm not quite sure why they're not. Apparently these populist protests don't count much for them.

Millions concerned they're being taxed and fee'ed to death counts even less for them.

But a Million Man March that turns out to be well shy of a million men, even a half-million men, does count for them.

We covered the follow-up marches to that Million Man March. Because no matter the number, it was a big deal. And its message about personal responsibility was an even bigger deal.

You see, we didn't pick and choose our protests. We covered those against the Iraq war. Just as we did the far less publicized rallies for the Iraq war.

Some of us had serious questions about global warming, but that didn't get in the way of our covering protests railing against global warming. That's just being fair and balanced.

Here's what's not: Deciding what protests fit a politically correct litmus test. Apparently, protests against big government do not. Protests demanding more government do.

I bet you if there was a protest of taxpayers demanding we all pay more taxes, that'd get covered. Not this. Not now. Why?

Because populist rage doesn't matter? Or this populist rage doesn't matter?

I just wonder if there were a New York Times or CNN back in the day of the real Boston Tea Party, would either so much have bothered sending a reporter or a crew to cover the event?

I doubt it.

Why cover some nuts throwing tea into Boston Harbor when you harbor doubts about the nuts throwing the tea. Until you discover they're not nuts.

It's not about tea. And you're the one on the wrong side. Not of the protest, but of something else: history.

Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" and send your comments to cavuto@foxnews.com