As Barack Obama outlines his plans to escalate the remembered forgotten war in Afghanistan, one question remains on everybody’s lips: what are those assholes in the Liberal Media going to do to sabotage the fun run-up to more exciting war? They’re probably going to be real buzzkills about this and act all critical and shit like always. If only they’d allow themselves to be steamrolled, just this one last time.
Wait! Some fancy new report from word-pirate organization Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) says the media actually is marching in firm lockstep with the newest war drums.
FAIR’s website says this very unliberal thing about the liberal media:
“FAIR’s study looked at all opinion columns in the New York Times and the Washington Post during the first 10 months of 2009 that addressed what the U.S. should do in the Afghanistan War. Columns were counted as antiwar if they called for withdrawal or clearly called into question the need or rationale for the war. Columns that supported continuing the war were counted as pro-war; these were divided into those that endorsed the idea of escalating the war and those that advocated some sort of alternative strategy, including reducing the number of troops.
Both newspapers marginalized antiwar opinion to different degrees. Of the New York Times’ 43 columns on the Afghanistan War, 36 supported the war and only seven opposed it—five times as many columns to war supporters as to opponents. Of the paper’s pro-war columns, 14 favored some form of escalation, while 22 argued for pursuing the war differently.
In the Washington Post, pro-war columns outnumbered antiwar columns by more than 10 to 1: Of 67 Post columns on U.S. military policy in Afghanistan, 61 supported a continued war, while just six expressed antiwar views. Of the pro-war columns, 31 were for escalation and 30 for an alternative strategy.” [emphasis added.]
That’s so weird guys. How could the liberal media possibly call for more war on a Muslim country, only a few years after they just called for more war on a Muslim country? They’re all so LIBERAL. Why, those peacenik hippies David Brooks and David Ignatius–hereafter known as The Hippies David–are probably high on Afghani mushrooms or whatever it is they grow right now! I bet the goddamn Hippies David are burning their bras as we speak. Oh, they’re advocating for more war? Gotcha.
Also, I wonder if this evidence will finally put to death the idiotic myth of the Liberal Media. Ha!
One final thought. So the myth of the media as some sort of peace-loving (traditionally Liberal) force is clearly idiotic, but in America, the business of waging war has very little to do with whether a politician identifies as being liberal or conservative. All post-WWII American presidents and congresses wage war to varying degrees, but no one could say with a straight face that this country’s “liberal” party is also an anti-war party.
We don’t have an anti-war political party in this country, and our corporate media establishment, as the above report shows, is always willing to support further conflicts. Whenever any pundit or politician says, “We need to have a dialogue about what to do about [X] war,” remember exactly what the limits of that conversation are.
To see Jim Naureckas, editor of Extra!, the magazine of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, discuss this report on Democracy Now!, click here.
For a great Op-Ed–the kind we could use to enhance our, um, limited, national dialogue–click here to read Malalai Joya’s article in the Guardian.