This video from the USA is called The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News.
By Steve Rendall in the USA:
In Afghan Debate, Few Antiwar Op-Eds
Elite papers marginalize public opposition
By Steve Rendall
The Obama administration, having increased the number of troops in Afghanistan by 21,000 in March, is engaged in a contentious internal discussion about whether to send an additional 40,000 more. There is growing anger over Afghan civilian deaths, and July and August were the deadliest months for U.S. soldiers since the U.S. invaded in 2001 (AP, 8/28/09).
Meanwhile, polls throughout 2009 show a U.S. public divided on whether the war is even worth fighting, let alone in need of escalation. In three surveys since July, the AP/GfK poll has reported that at least 53 percent of respondents say they oppose the Afghanistan War (PollingReport.com). In September, 51 percent told the Washington Post/ABC News poll (9/10–12/09) that the war was not “worth fighting”; only 46 percent said it was.
The need for broad public debate over Afghanistan was echoed in September by Joint Chiefs of Staff chair Adm. Mike Mullen. Citing popular opposition to the war, Mullen called for a broad debate to take a “hard look” at the policy. “I’ve seen the public opinion polls saying that a majority of Americans don’t support the effort at all,” Mullen told an American Legion convention in Louisville, Ky (Washington Post, 8/26/09). “I say, good. Let’s have that debate, let’s have that discussion.”
But according to a new FAIR study of the op-ed pages of the two leading U.S. newspapers, rather than airing a full range of voices on the war, prominent media have downplayed proponents of withdrawal in favor of a debate that reflects the narrow range of elite, inside-Washington opinion.
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.
At times the Post’s editors seemed unaware that an antiwar position even existed. For instance, in an op-ed roundtable (9/27/09) appearing in its recurring “Topic A” feature, the section’s editors, in their words, “asked foreign policy experts whether President Obama should maintain a focus on protecting the population and rebuilding the country, or on striking terrorists.”
Excluding withdrawal from the discussion was a theme echoed by Post columnist Fareed Zakaria, who began a column (9/14/09): “It is time to get real about Afghanistan. Withdrawal is not a serious option.”
The Washington Post and the New York Times are “liberal” media …. at least, in the feverish imagination of the far Right in the USA. The FAIR report does not discuss out and out Rightist media like the Washington Times owned by the Moonie cult, Rupert Murdoch’s empire, etc.
MSNBC’s Anti-War Censorship: A Reminder: here.
The Nation magazine has responded to President Barack Obama’s announcement of an escalation of the Afghan war with efforts at damage control and a new attempt to mislead the US population and keep it within the bounds of the present political setup: here.
The BBC was involved in a fresh row over its flagship Question Time programme on Friday when it was accused of disregarding public opinion in a line-up of panellists set to discuss the war in Afghanistan: here.
From Cenk Uygur in the USA:
Why I Changed My Mind On Afghanistan
Until about a month ago, I agreed with Barack Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan. I thought we should have concentrated on Afghanistan from the beginning. We should have brought in so many more troops. We owed it to the Afghan people to do the best we could for them since we happened to invade their country. I think the Taliban is the scourge of the earth, and the idea that they might take over after we leave is abhorrent to me. We had to stay and get it right.
So, what happened?
The Afghan elections.
Over one million votes were fraudulent. 1.3 million fake votes were thrown out to be exact. That’s out of only five million votes. That’s ridiculous. Obviously the current government of Afghanistan is a sham. The key to “winning” in Afghanistan is to convince the Afghani people to work with us. They have to side with us over the Taliban. If they don’t, we’re not helping them, we’re fighting them. And that’s just about where we are now. …
The bottom line is that we don’t have a viable partner in Afghanistan and we don’t have the legitimacy that is essential to rebuilding the country. The Afghans don’t view us as their saviors. They view us as the latest intruder in their valley. That is not a visit that is going to work out for us. That’s not a visit that’s ever worked out for anybody.
PBS Just as Corporate, White, Male and Republican as Commercial TV: here.
Messing With Our Minds: The Ever Finer Line Between News and Advertising. Kingsley Dennis, Truthout: “The manufacturing of consent is endemic within modern societies. Throughout history, the need to ‘persuade and influence’ has always been manipulated by those people in power as a means to maintain authority and legitimacy. In more recent years, the overall manipulation of the mass public mind has become less about making speeches and more about becoming a pervasive presence within the lives of each individual”: here.