37 ms·

Establishment media organizations in the Anglo world are so reluctant to criticize of the Government line on anything related to foreign policy. It seems like i

Establishment media organizations in the Anglo world are so reluctant to criticize of the Government line on anything related to foreign policy. It seems like it would be so easy and risk-free in the current era especially. They're either ignorant of the history of US interference in Latin America, or they're ideologues acting in bad faith. I imaging there is also a strong pressure to go-along to get-along that weeds out anyone who would properly push back. I recommend The Gray Zone Project for a counters-establishment perspective. Like all journalism, you need to know how to read it, but it really does cover foreign policy in a way that NYT cannot. https://grayzoneproject.com/ https://grayzoneproject.com/ If you prefer something more tabloid-y I recommend The Canary. They even have US and UK editions. https://www.thecanary.co/us/ https://www.thecanary.co/us/

jcranmer 8y ago
> Establishment media organizations in the Anglo world are so reluctant to criticize of the Government line on anything related to foreign policy. How did you miss the fact that virtually every US newspaper has criticized the current president's foreign policy on deep breath Syria, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Canada, South Korea, Russia, most of our allies, etc? Even before our current president plumbed unheard of depths in foreign policy idiocies, I've long seen criticism of foreign policy. The drone assassination program was a big one. The virtues of the surges in Iraq and Afghanistan was certainly a spirited debate.
- dj_gitmo 8y ago
  I'm not really talking about the current administration. I'm talking about the US government's overall policy of overseas intervention that goes back decades. The press often criticize the government for not intervening, or for exiting an intervention. You're not going to see anyone on the pages of the NYT say that the US shouldn't be intervening in other countries, period. > How did you miss the fact that virtually every US newspaper has criticized the current president's foreign policy on deep breath Syria, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Canada, South Korea, Russia, most of our allies, etc? > Syria The press criticized the administration for deciding to leave. Even though the Syrian civil war is basically over and the regime won. Obama was criticized for not "doing enough" even though the Syrian Civil War was the largest CIA operation in decades and the opposition was overwhelmingly made up of sectarian death-squads. Don't take my word for it, read what the NYT's Thomas Friedman said in 2017. He argues we should allow ISIS to continue existing so that it might take down the Assad regime. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/opinion/why-is-trump-fighting-isis-in-syria.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/opinion/why-is-trump-figh... > Russia The liberal press has been criticized the decision not to ramp up a new cold-war with Russia. They attack anyone who opposes more sanctions. > Iraq The press uncritically promoted the invasion of Iraq and only turned against it when it started going bad. > Afghanistan If the any administration decided to pull out they would be criticized. How about the West's role in Yemen? You didn't hear anything about that in the Anglo press until recently even though the UN was calling it the worst humanitarian disaster in the world. I'm not saying the establishment press is always wrong. They serve an important purpose, but on foreign policy in particular their coverage ranges from good(leaving the Iran deal is bad) to awful(uncritical support for Syrian opposition), and sometimes it's just propaganda.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    If you go look for any example of any op-ed in any publication taking any side in a foreign policy controversy, you will find it. It is not reasonable to then take that example and extrapolate it to "the press" or even "the liberal press".
    - detcader 8y ago
      This is why Chomsky et al also look at access to administration leaks and special interviews, the patterns of career TV "analysts" that get brought on to "analyze" a current event, and the way language, structure, and frequency of print news stories paint a picture. I doubt anyone is presenting "# of op-eds" as some sort of quantitative signifier and is unaware of the shades of gray between op-eds and news stories.

jcranmer 8y ago

> Establishment media organizations in the Anglo world are so reluctant to criticize of the Government line on anything related to foreign policy. How did you miss the fact that virtually every US newspaper has criticized the current president's foreign policy on deep breath Syria, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Canada, South Korea, Russia, most of our allies, etc? Even before our current president plumbed unheard of depths in foreign policy idiocies, I've long seen criticism of foreign policy. The drone assassination program was a big one. The virtues of the surges in Iraq and Afghanistan was certainly a spirited debate.

dj_gitmo 8y ago
I'm not really talking about the current administration. I'm talking about the US government's overall policy of overseas intervention that goes back decades. The press often criticize the government for not intervening, or for exiting an intervention. You're not going to see anyone on the pages of the NYT say that the US shouldn't be intervening in other countries, period. > How did you miss the fact that virtually every US newspaper has criticized the current president's foreign policy on deep breath Syria, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Canada, South Korea, Russia, most of our allies, etc? > Syria The press criticized the administration for deciding to leave. Even though the Syrian civil war is basically over and the regime won. Obama was criticized for not "doing enough" even though the Syrian Civil War was the largest CIA operation in decades and the opposition was overwhelmingly made up of sectarian death-squads. Don't take my word for it, read what the NYT's Thomas Friedman said in 2017. He argues we should allow ISIS to continue existing so that it might take down the Assad regime. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/opinion/why-is-trump-fighting-isis-in-syria.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/opinion/why-is-trump-figh... > Russia The liberal press has been criticized the decision not to ramp up a new cold-war with Russia. They attack anyone who opposes more sanctions. > Iraq The press uncritically promoted the invasion of Iraq and only turned against it when it started going bad. > Afghanistan If the any administration decided to pull out they would be criticized. How about the West's role in Yemen? You didn't hear anything about that in the Anglo press until recently even though the UN was calling it the worst humanitarian disaster in the world. I'm not saying the establishment press is always wrong. They serve an important purpose, but on foreign policy in particular their coverage ranges from good(leaving the Iran deal is bad) to awful(uncritical support for Syrian opposition), and sometimes it's just propaganda.
- tptacek 8y ago
  If you go look for any example of any op-ed in any publication taking any side in a foreign policy controversy, you will find it. It is not reasonable to then take that example and extrapolate it to "the press" or even "the liberal press".
  - detcader 8y ago
    This is why Chomsky et al also look at access to administration leaks and special interviews, the patterns of career TV "analysts" that get brought on to "analyze" a current event, and the way language, structure, and frequency of print news stories paint a picture. I doubt anyone is presenting "# of op-eds" as some sort of quantitative signifier and is unaware of the shades of gray between op-eds and news stories.