Not The Onion.
Five major US newspapers—the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Daily News—offered no opinion space to anyone opposed to Donald Trump’s Thursday night airstrikes. By contrast, the five papers ran a total of 18 op-eds, columns or “news analysis” articles (dressed-up opinion pieces) that either praised the strikes or criticized them for not being harsh enough:
New York Times
- After the Missiles, We Need Smart Diplomacy on Syria (4/7/17)
- Acting on Instinct, Trump Upends His Own Foreign Policy (4/7/17) (originally headlined “On Syria Attack, Trump’s Heart Came First”—presumably changed due to social media mockery)
- Trump Raises the Stakes for Russia and Iran (4/7/17)
- Syria’s ‘Conundrum’: Limited Strikes Risk Entrenching Assad’s Strategy (4/7/17)
Washington Post
- Editorial: Trump’s Chance to Step Into the Global Leadership Vacuum (4/7/17)
- Trump Enforces the ‘Red Line’ on Chemical Weapons (4/6/17)
- Trump Has an Opportunity to Right Obama’s Wrongs in Syria (4/6/17)
- Syrian Opposition Leader: Trump Has a Chance to Save Syria (4/7/17)
- Was Trump’s Syria Strike a Moral Impulse or a Policy Change? (4/7/17)
- Will Trump’s Decision to Strike Syria Reset His Presidency? (4/7/17)
- Trump Might Be Going to War. But He Has No Plans for Establishing Peace (4/7/17) (Though the piece has criticism of Trump, it starts by declaring that the missile strikes were “an appropriate response to an act of unspeakable horror.”)
Wall Street Journal
- Editorial: Trump’s Syria Opportunity (4/7/17)
- With Strike on Syria, Trump Sends a Global Message (4/7/17)
USA Today
- Editorial: Trump Pulls the Trigger in Syria (4/7/17)
- Syria Missile Strike Could Lead to Political Solution (4/7/17)
Daily News
- Praise Trump’s Syria Action, but Question His Explanation (4/7/17)
- Trump’s Syria Response Raises Urgent Questions (4/7/17)
- Trump’s Syria Action: A Limited Strike for a Specific Purpose (4/7/17)
Some, such as “The Riddle of Trump’s Syria Attack” (New York Times, 4/7/17) and “Was That Syria Attack Legal? Only Congress Can Say” (USA Today, 4/7/17) were value neutral—neither expressly in support of the attacks nor opposing them.
Cable news coverage was equally fawning. In the hours immediately following the attack, MSNBC had on a seemingly never-ending string of military brass and reporters who uncritically repeated the assertion the strikes were “proportional” and “limited.” MSNBC didn’t give a platform to a single dissenting voice until four hours after the attacks began, when host Chris Hayes, according to his own account, had on two guests opposed to the airstrikes in the midnight slot. MSNBC host Brian Williams got into a bit of hot water when he lovingly admired a slick video sent over by the Pentagon showing tomahawk missiles being fired from US navy vessels (FAIR.org, 4/7/17).
CNN’s resident Serious Military Person Lt. Gen Mark Hertling repeated over and over—seemingly on script—that the strikes were “bold, tactical.” CNN’s Fareed Zakaria gushed praise on Trump Friday morning (4/7/17; FAIR.org, 4/7/17), telling host Alisyn Camerota, “I think Donald Trump became president of the United States…. This was a big moment.”
Due to the mostly bipartisan support for the airstrikes, it’s somewhat predictable that corporate media would follow suit. No need to debate the morality or utility of the strikes, because the scene played out per usual: Dictator commits an alleged human rights violation, the media calls on those in power to “do something” and the ticking time bomb compels immediate action, lest we look “weak” on the “global stage.” Anything that deviates from this narrative is given token attention at best.
Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. You can find him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.
How to go from “Vladimir Putin’s Pee Pee Sex Manchurian Candidate” to “The President with a Big Heart” in one easy airstrike.
I urge consideration for the super efficacy of the “Boost Security State Spending Model”. The Boost Security State Spending Model holds that there is a Deep State including the leaders of CIA/DOD/NSC/FBI/NSA who will try to spin every event in some way that calls for greater spending and power for the US Security State in the short, medium, or long term. The model also holds that most all major mainstream media outlets are controlled by partners of the Deep State who will ultimately find way to either back the same agenda, or, at worst, not oppose it.
Of the sites mentioned, I looked at the NYT and notioned a few other very positive articles that didn’t make the list including Kristof’s editorial saying Trump was right and a timeline that painted him as a conscientious humanitarian agonising over the deaths of the children. There were no stories present that noticed the wealth of evidence on the Internet, from sources inside Syria and around the World, including the US intel community, who claim that Assad was not behind the attacks.
Fire
We’re always ready
Oh, but RT (formerly Russia Today) broadcasts state propaganda and should be condemned, even suppressed.
There is little in the way of functional independence in the US media. None that is allowed to express itself anyway.
we are not stupid…This airstrike was nothing more then a distraction from whats really happening. Those that need this explained to them should really pay better attention to whats going on in the world.
NY Times article “A One-Time Signal Aimed at Halting More Gas Attacks” explained in detail how Americans tracked Syrian military plane from take off, dropped chemical bombs, confirming Syrian responsibility. Yet Times does not question why American military can’t figure out who dropped bombs killing 200 civilians in Mosul 2 weeks ago?
Adding to what jack said, my theory is this attack was carried out as an assist to ISIS. The neocons know the Syrian government was gaining ground in its fight against ISIS, which, if allowed to continue would obviously prevent their main objective of using ISIS to topple the Asaad regime. So, they orchestrated this false flag op as a pretext to intervene militarily.
Hmmm, the weird Turkish fascist says they have the evidence—Syria did it. WHY would Syria do this when it is winning? Why kill their own people? WHY do the major news outlets continue to state that America is never wrong, and it’s everyone else who is evil!
O.K. America… you want a major war to prop up our dying economy? Fine—BUT all 18 to 40 year olds are immediately. drafted…NO 1% escape hatches like being a student..poor kids are tired of dying so rich kids can live. Finally, ALL in Congress who support this”Remember the Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, WNDs crap, MUST also deploy into the wear zone—no exceptions. NOW—-who really wants a war when the arses of rich and connected are on the line too? Wow, PEACE would come quickly I bet.
Joseph Goebbels’ finest students.
President Trump finally got some good press from the fake news media. I hope he is now happy. But, to us who put him in power, we that voted for him, we are not happy that he has betrayed his promise to us that he would not bomb Syria and that he would not be a “regime change President”. He promised to make America great again and stop all the funding of wars, to other nations, and just concentrate on making America great again. He betrayed his base and all Americans.
Hi kevin
Maybe you are not aware that on 2013, following the Gouta gas attack, an extensive UN Inquiry found Assad government NOT responsible. The mainstream media forgot to report that inconvenient fact i guess.
And it’s not just the “corporate media” that blatantly panders for YUGE profits but the ever more execrable NPR (pimping for corporate “underwriting”?) who consistently used the word “apparent” to describe a convenient specious ALLEGED “attack” that’s now being used to justify even more institutionalized violence…
And that doubtless will create more “terrorists” for corporate profits…
Assad and Putin assumed that since Trump vociferously and repeated made his position of non-intervention crystal clear, that he would do nothing if Assad crossed the red line and used chemical weapons. What’s missing in the conversation is that Trump believed that any intervention in the Syrian conflict should never happen without explicit congressional approval, and that Assad saw this as an opportunity, if not permission to use chemical WMD’s. Trump was loudly emphatic about non-interventionism – that was his oft stated position. After he saw the images of dead children Trump must of asked himself, “Does Assad think I’m okay with this?” Trump must have realized that if he had publicly supported Obama’s red line, Assad would have been a lot more reluctant to use chemical weapons. Assad and Putin believed Trump was ardently opposed to any kind of military intervention. Assad thought he was free to do as he pleased.
That’s a strange line of reasoning, Kevin. Assad gassed his own people because he didn’t think there’d be consequences? Makes no sense. Despite how Western media try to portray him, Asaad is a smart man, and there’s no sensible reason for him to do something like this. Look at the bigger picture.
Hi kevin
Maybe you are not aware that on 2013, following the Gouta gas attack, an extensive UN Inquiry found Assad government NOT responsible. The mainstream media forgot to report that inconvenient fact i guess.
H E G E M O N Y
Yes sirree mr f. We must not forget that they have the one true sky-pixie on their side and verily the sky pixie they worship hath blessed psycho uncle sam with the greatest multitude and variety of death-weapons to do their sky pixie’s will. Amen and pass the vommit bag!
The problem is that people forget, and pundits who offer bad advice are not called to account. Recall what Washington-based Edward Luttwak wrote in the build-up to the war in Iraq: “While the chattering classes continue to ask irrelevant questions about the future of Iraq after a successful war, the issue for Mr. Bush is America’s security, not Iraq’s.” “Stop Saddam’s shell game,” The Globe and Mail (Canada) August 13, 2002. Current problems can largely be traced to that lack of concern for Iraq’s security.
Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years
“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw
July 23, 2006 Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon
Bush’s Plan for “Serial War” revealed by General Wesley Clark. “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark) According to General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon, by late 2001.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-2001-pentagon-plan-to-attack-lebanon/2797
Well done, good work. That is a very interesting angle on the deep state and their need to end Syria. The mockingbirds sing their songs. And a new USA puppet will make sure the NOR PONS gas field goes through to europe from Qatar. And in that process isolate Russia, in the grand chess move towards globalism and one world government. Economic war a bitch.
Thank-you your on my favorites.
Keep flyin Straight
great deconstruction of the propaganda as always Adam and FAIR. I was watching the Jimmy Dore Show and Jimmy was reporting on this mythbusting piece of yours. keep up the good works folks! :)
Syria supports Hezbollah who defend Lebanon from Israeli land grabbing making Assad another enemy of the Jews. Whenever a politician does their bidding he or she is praised in the Jewish media and American’s are further threatened by the likelihood of more terrorism from people who don’t like the US Government carrying out terrorist attacks for Israel. Not hard to see what’s going on.
Syria supports Hezbollah who defend Lebanon from Israeli land grabbing making Assad another enemy of the Jews. Whenever a politician does their bidding he or she is praised in the Jewish media and American’s are further threatened by the likelihood of more terrorism from people who don’t like the US Government carrying out terrorist attacks for Israel. Not hard to see what’s going on.