“Only…with the departure of the Assad regime, will it be possible to ensure that Syrians do not suffer more atrocities,” the Washington Post (4/14/18) editorialized.
A survey by FAIR of the top 100 papers in the US by circulation found not a single editorial board opposed to Trump’s April 13 airstrikes on Syria. Twenty supported the strikes, while six were ambiguous as to whether or not the bombing was advisable. The remaining 74 issued no opinion about Trump’s latest escalation of the Syrian war.
This is fairly consistent with editorial support for Trump’s April 2017 airstrikes against the Syrian government, which saw only one editorial out of 47 oppose the bombing (FAIR.org, 4/11/17). The single paper of dissent from last year, the Houston Chronicle, didn’t publish an editorial on last week’s bombing.
Seven of the top 10 newspapers by circulation—USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, Chicago Tribune, Newsday and Washington Post—supported the airstrikes. The New York Daily News and San Jose Mercury News offered no opinion, while the New York Times (4/13/18) was ambiguous—mostly lamenting the lack of congressional approval, but not saying that this meant the strikes were illegal or unwise. “Legislation should…set limits on a president’s ability to wage war against states like Syria,” is the Times’ conclusion. A complete list of editorials on the airstrikes can be viewed here.
Almost every editorial spoke in the same Official, Serious tone that demanded “action” be taken and “international norms” be “enforced.” Some, such as the Wall Street Journal (4/16/18), went further, insisting on a wider war against the Syrian regime, Iran and/or Russia in vague but menacing terms.
“Barack Obama dealt Mr. Trump a bad hand by letting Russia, Iran and China believe they could advance their goals of regional domination without US resistance,” the Journal insisted. “In Syria as elsewhere, Mr. Trump has to decide if he wants to ratify that American retreat or develop a strategy to stop it.”
Toledo Blade (4/15/18): “Let’s take a break from the Comey Chronicles to feel proud and send those who protect us…our gratitude and prayers.”
The mid-market Toledo Blade (4/15/18) punched above its weight class and delivered the most bellicose and jingoistic editorial of them all with “The West Stands Up”:
Make no mistake, this was a warning to Vladimir Putin as well as Bashar al-Assad.
The United States and its two longtime allies redrew the red line that had been obliterated by a failure of nerve by the US and the West generally: There will be cost for your barbarities….
But in the larger sense, the West did what it should have done a long time ago. It stood up for decency and international law. It stood up for those who are defenseless. It stood up for itself, and for simple humanity, and redeemed some self-respect.
If Assad regime officials find themselves catching up on news from the greater Northwest Ohio region, they will surely take heed.
None of the top 100 newspapers questioned the US’s legal or moral right to bomb Syria, and all accepted US government claims to be neutral arbiters of “international law.” Many editorials handwrung about a “lack of strategy” or absence of congressional approval, but none so much that they opposed the bombing. Strategy and legal sanction are add-on features—nice but, by all accounts, not essential.
The total lack of editorial board dissent is consistent with major papers’ tradition of uniform acceptance of US military action. The most influential paper in the country, the New York Times, has not opposed a single US war—from the Persian Gulf to Bosnia, to Kosovo to Iraq to Libya to the forever war on ISIS—in the past 30 years.
The scope of debate among major editorial boards is not if Trump should bomb the Syrian regime, but how much bombing he should undertake—and when, roughly speaking, he should maybe get around to letting Congress know.
The whole thing is very depressing. Syria is still a sovereign nation with defined borders. The government of Syria invited the Russians in much the same way the South Vietnamese government invited the Americans. To bomb that country, a sovereign nation, on such flimsy pretext without congressional approval and without taking it to the U.N. is an act of aggressive war under Article 1 of the U.N. Charter.
So basically what these papers and others are saying is that the U.N. Charter is meaningless. Ok. So how long before Russia bombs parts of Ukraine, or Israel bombs Lebanon, or Saudi Arabia bombs Yemen, the Chinese bomb Taiwan or North Korea bombs the South and so on. What we’re saying is that might makes right and what this is going to do is enable regional conflict.
The very first time one of these regional conflicts generalize to involving the great powers (China, Russia, U.S.) that could very well be the end of it. No great power is going to admit defeat until it uses all the weapons it has. All have nuclear weapons. If the great powers go to war just once more, a majority of mammals with an adult weight more than 20 pounds would die. Most from starvation in the nuclear winter.
So please tell me why one would start down that path if one is not criminally insane? I don’t understand it. Militarily all we learned is that our stand-off missiles are vulnerable to interceptor missiles of even a moderately armed country which is even worse because it means to accomplish anything militarily we would have to fire thousands instead of hundreds which would be a sharp escalation. We sharply escalate, they sharply escalate, the war spins out of control and there you are.
Like I said it’s depressing. By the time the public becomes aware of the danger to them and their families it will be after the first escalation and by then it will be far too late. Training the public that these strikes are like a video game and don’t have consequences is pernicious at best and evil at worst and such is the state of “Journalism” in the U.S. Not unlike the Spanish American war or the World Wars except this time all the players have nuclear weapons. We can’t keep behaving like it’s still 1944 and expect to survive.
The disgraceful NYT was only ambiguous because any word which appeared to say something positive about The Trumpet would stick in it’s throat. It continues to spout anti-Trumpet propaganda at the rate of 10 negative articles a day!
90 % of the MSM is owned by a handful of people and most if not all are Jews ; the MSM Is nothing more than the mouthpiece of the intelligence agencies and the government , so their endorsement means absolutely nothing , just more reasons for people to know what MSM really is .
The so-called liberal media ar the most insidious in support for war. From phoney or staged gas attacks to very real denial of basic services at home, across the world, the press toe the line on whatever position is asked.
In the UK this week the BBC have ressurected a notoriously racist speech by Enoch Powell, on the pretext of ‘analysing’ it on its fiftieth anniversary.
Whatever happened to the fourth estate being a check against tyranny in power? The investigation into Assad’s use of chemical weapons wasn’t completed, yet Trump launched the attack and our press said nothing … https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/13/chemical-weapons-inspectors-to-investigate-syria-attack-site
No one of these is reporting the FRAUD that ALL the Syrian “chemical weapons” stories have been, including this one. We are through the looking glass, where time and again the lies of Jihadists are splattered all over the US corporate news, and swallowed by even allegedly critical voices. There is not one shred of credible evidence Syria’s government has EVER used chemical weapons in the entire conflict. The evidence most certainly points the other way, and that is to America’s proxy terrorists. That’s the real story, not what some op-ed nincompoops shit out.
Here’s the boy who was used in the fraudulent video explaining what happened the other day:
https://youtu.be/f9VwVZrFhvE
Here’s legendary war correspondent Robert Fisk interviewing a doctor who was there:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html
Such debunking shouldn’t be all that necessary given that the “White Helmets” the siource of these claims is staffed with Al Qaeda lunatics, itself another crime. Western governments are aiding and abetting Al Qaeda giving them money and video cameras to manufacture war propaganda for them.
Surprise, surprise. But, not really. We know who controls the corporate media, and they are not loyal to America.
Let’s not forget past history—Back in 1996, Bill Clinton received a demand letter.That 7 middle east countries be destroyed for security of Israel. USA UK France Israel will not give up their goal, even if WWIII takes place.Question of importance—this has been reported many times and has been forgotten by the all Jewish media.
Very very frightening. How can people in the USA pretend to have some moral high ground while destroying any part of the world they decide to attack, with NO legal right or authority to interfere with sovereign countries.?
Don’t pretend the USA cares at all about human rights, chemical weapons (the USA uses them all the time) or the Syrian people. You vote for your own ‘leader’ and don’t decide to tell others who they should elect, and who should be theirallies.
This is a good indication of how deeply corrupt traditional US media are. In this latest case of Trump’s bombing of Syria before any verification of facts, there is a good chance that the entire episode was a hoax. Indeed, several reports by independent investigators, on the ground in Syria, have now established that there has been no chemical gas attack in Syria before Donald Trump decided to bomb the country of Syria on April 14. This was a big lie and a grotesque staging.
The profoundly biased reporting is a reflection of the very high concentration of ownership of the US media and their lack of professionalism. In other words, Americans are being served high doses of propaganda on a daily basis. There is no objectivity and morality on the part of the current US media. This resembles the media in the old Soviet Union.
Here is what US newspapers said after Powell’s UN speech:
The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable.
The Wall Street Journal
Piling fact upon fact, photo upon photo Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell methodically demonstrated why Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein remains dangerous to his own people, Iraq’s neighbors…
The Los Angeles Times
On Wednesday, America’s most reluctant warrior, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, presented succinct and damning evidence of Saddam’s enormous threat to world peace.
Arizona Republic
Saddam Hussein’s illicit arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, as well as the equally illicit means that he possesses to deliver them, poses a tangible and urgent danger to U.S. and world security. Millions of innocent lives are at risk.
Dallas Morning News
At some point, the world chooses to believe President George W. Bush and Secretary Powell or the international community chooses to side with Saddam Hussein and those who broadcast his lies to the world. …Powell has painstakingly presented a strong case against Iraq.
Greenville News/South Carolina
Iraq is busted. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out the case clearly. No one hearing Powell’s presentation to the United Nations Security Council could doubt Iraq’s actions and intentions.
Jacksonville Times-Union/Florida
The threat is real and at our door. Sept. 11, 2001, stripped away the belief that the United States can peacefully coexist with evil. Prove it, they said. Powell has.
Charleston Daily Mail/West Virginia
We are a country always loath to fight unless provoked. The reluctance of Americans to initiate a war needlessly does the nation credit. But this is not a needless war, nor is it unprovoked. Powell laid out the need, and explained the provocation, in step-by-step fashion that cannot be refuted without resorting to fantasy.
Chicago Sun-Times
The Dispatch repeatedly has called on the Bush administration to make a compelling case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction and hiding these efforts from U.N. inspectors. Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell made that case before the Security Council.
Columbus Dispatch
Powell has methodically proved Iraq’s failure to comply with U.N. mandates. With each passing day, Iraq’s own choices move it closer to a war that full compliance would prevent.
Indianapolis Star
Secretary of State Colin Powell’s 90-minute presentation to the U.N. Security Council, buttressed with surveillance photographs and recorded phone conversations, should remove all doubt that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein has developed and hides weapons of mass destruction, in violation of U.N. resolutions.
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
Powell’s speech to the U.N. Security Council presented not just one ‘smoking gun’ but a battery of them, more than sufficient to dispel any lingering doubt about the threat the Iraqi dictator poses.
Denver Post
The United States has made a compelling case that Iraq has failed to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. This failure violates the U.N. Security Council resolution of late last year which ordered Iraq to disarm. As a consequence and it is a grave one, the Security Council must act now to disarm Iraq by force.
Salt Lake City Tribune
Powell has connected enough dots to tie Iraq to al-Qaeda and show that this alliance is a threat to all of Europe as well as the United States.
Manchester Union Leader
In fact, the speech provided proof that Saddam continues to refuse to obey U.N. resolutions. Any amount of time he has now to comply fully and openly with U.N. demands should be measured in days or a few weeks – and no longer.
Portland Press-Herald/Maine
The bad hand barryobamanothercountry dealt to the shlump was in backing the attempted overthrow of the government in the first place.
The bad hand barryobamanothercountry dealt to the shlump was in backing the attempted overthrow of the government in the first place.
The reason there is no opposition on those so called major media outlets is nobody reads them, go look on Yahoo if you want to feel the pule of the nation.
Censored bull S
Nobody reads the so called e net rags you mention, if you want to see how people feel read yahoo comments
i think trump’s strikes on syria were ok because he was told by russia where he could strike. he does what putin tells him, so why are you upset that mainstream press folks are not criticizing him. maybe they have learned from you that it is good to do what putin wants. so be happy, you got your way if you think about it.
congratulations.
Your article is very interesting!
PLEASE NOTE: https://youtu.be/wHsfc49Y_Fk — Blackstone Intelligence
“The Terrifying Truth of what Really Happened in Syria!” The Financial Armageddon Blog
Watch it ALL… please, and then perhaps you will reconsider what you may be surmising, believing or thought you knew.
This man has been “there” with a passion for truth for decades, working in his field of mid-east reporting, consulting with resources on the ground in real time, in Syria with/from the people of Syria. He knows what he is talking about!
Hope you will observe his full story because it gets best toward the end! Thanks! L Jensen
Most of the MSM demonize Israel’s neighbors, of which Syria is one.
Seems like everyone has an ax to grind, including FAIR. Hard to know whom to believe. Waiting for inspector’s report.
To be truly FAIR, you need to list the corporate owners of each paper and allow us to see how policy is really decided.
To be truly FAIR, you need to list the corporate owners of each paper and allow us to see how policy is really decided.