Friday, August 27, 2021

A superlative takedown of the contemptible pro-war cowards in corporate media

My take is that this won’t have a lasting political impact. But I’m noting that I could be wrong, and that the last time corporate “news” media behaved this despicably, pandering to the most misinformed and gullible segment of the population, Trump ended up in the White House.
Mainstream coverage of Kabul’s fall and its aftermath has been anything but circumspect. Attempts to weigh the benefits of America’s withdrawal (e.g., the humanitarian gains inherent to the cessation of 20 years of civil war) against its costs have been rare; attempts to judge Biden’s execution of that withdrawal against rigorous counterfactuals have been rarer still. Instead, ostensibly neutral correspondents and anchors have (1) openly editorialized against the White House’s policy; (2) assigned Biden near-total responsibility for the final collapse of the proto-failed state his predecessors had established; and then (3) reported on the potential political costs of Biden’s actions, as though they were not actively imposing those costs through their own speculations about just “how politically damaging” the president’s failures of “competence” and “empathy” would prove to be...

One can critically report on concrete failings in the Biden administration’s withdrawal plans. But one cannot presume Biden’s responsibility for every negative consequence that follows from ending a misbegotten war and deserve the title journalist. By privileging the victims of American military withdrawal over those of American military engagement — while presuming the U.S. president’s capacity to decisively shape events in foreign lands — the media has rendered itself objectively pro-war. In allowing personal attachments to dictate its humanitarian concerns, mainstream reporters have concentrated moral outrage on an injustice that the U.S. can’t resolve without resort to violence (the Taliban’s conquest of Afghanistan), while enabling mass indifference to a much larger injustice that the U.S. can drastically mitigate without killing anyone (the global shortfall of COVID-19 vaccines). - New York Magazine

1 comment:

  1. I am torn ... it was the right decision to withdraw and if it was done during Trump's term, I would be angrier since (in my assessment), he just wanted out and wanted something to distinguish himself from the previous Administrations. His terms were bad and Biden is getting the blame.
    That said, I liken keeping the troops there was sorta like an insurance policy ... you know that most likely a fire will not destroy your home, so you will never get a return on those monies that you paid, but if something ever happened, you know your spouse will say "Why didn't you get insurance". Keeping a troop presence would have been easy for Biden to do, but he took the "Buck stops here" approach and is now paying for it in his legacy and future political elections. I fear there will be many hostages held for ransom producing a very unstable region while China and Russia take our Taliban-commendeered weapons in exchange from food and oil.

    I believe 99% of Americans had forgotten about Afghanistan and as your post informs us the media is all over it. So maybe a little history lesson might help ... Tom Maertens, who served as director of the interagency task force that planned and coordinated the U.S. response to 911, including the intervention in Afghanistan, had an article in the Mankato Free Press that is worth the read

    https://t.co/iEsw1KSD3c?amp=1

    BTW, Tom just tweeted out an article from The New Yorker that echoed your points
    https://t.co/rwrCKxAwFc?amp=1

    ReplyDelete