The national media watch group
Updated: 2 hours 59 min ago
The public doesn't seem to support going to war in Syria--but some high-profile Sunday morning TV journalists are declaring their support for the war, or professing faith in the case for going to war.
When they're used by official enemies, cluster bombs are weapons of indiscriminate terror. When they're used by the United States, they're not much worth talking about.
John Kerry appeared on all of the Sunday talkshows. But he was mostly not asked about the case for war with Syria. Instead, the questioning was overwhelmingly concerned with Barack Obama's decision to seek congressional approval for an attack on Syria.
Media reports emphasize the number John Kerry gives for the number of Syrians killed in the apparent chemical attack. But where does that number come from--and why is substantially higher than other estimates?
Whenever war is near you can count on U.S. media to tout the lethal efficiency of U.S. weapons
Which account of the mass deaths in Syria should be given more credence: the U.S. government version introduced by Secretary of State John Kerry, or the article published by the Minnesota-based news site Mint Press? The government account expresses "high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack." The Mint report bore the headline "Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack."
Time magazine's Michael Crowley (9/9/13) offers an analysis of how the Syrian situation reflects on Barack Obama's presidency: Whatever comes of Obama's confrontation with Assad, an even more dangerous confrontation lies in wait–the one with Iran. If another round of negotiations with Tehran should fail, Obama may soon be obliged to make good on his vow to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. "I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests," Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in March 2012. But to his critics, Obama does […]
This week on FAIR TV: Is Syria Iraq all over again? Plus a look at the CNN "debate" over military strikes that didn't have much debate, and the Wall Street Journal sees a big Tea Party "comeback."
One would hope that the lessons of Iraq might inform more of the coverage of Syria. But that's not always the case. Over the course of the past week, the White House and various officials have been adamant that they have evidence that shows the Syrian government was responsible for the horrific attack last week that likely killed hundreds, and very well could have been a chemical or gas attack of some sort. But too many journalists were treating what the government said it knew as if it was already actual evidence. On NBC Nightly News (8/27/13), Andrea Mitchell reported […]
"Left" debates "right" on CNN. Both sides want to bomb Syria.
The Washington Post wanted to show that big government was still big--but they wound up showing readers mostly the opposite.
FAIR's new alert looks at recent coverage of Iran at NPR and USA Today. If you'd like to share your letter to those outlets, you can do so in the comments thread below.
Providing convincing evidence that chemical attacks actually were the work of the Syrian government should be the first order of business. But it's hard not reach the conclusion that some in the media have already made up their minds.
In his attack last week on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin (8/20/13) started off by comparing the release of classified information about government spying to the assassination of Martin Luther King: The assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy led directly to the passage of a historic law, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Does that change your view of the assassinations? Should we be grateful for the deaths of these two men? Of course not. That's lunatic logic. But the same reasoning is now being applied to the actions of Edward Snowden. […]
On FAIR TV this week: CBS tries to call Edward Snowden a "spy," and Bill Kristol makes his ABC comeback with a bogus defense of New York's stop-and-frisk police searches. Plus: Student loan rates are slashed, say the TV reports. But are they actually…going up? Watch it all this on this week's episode:
What better way to show you care about ideological diversity than by hiring the guy who attacked one of your own reporters for asking him a question he didn't like?
There's a powerful urge to believe, it seems, that abusing the Fourth Amendment rights of young men of color somehow makes the rest of us safer.
Private Chelsea Manning will be serving out a 35-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth prison for revealing classified information to WikiLeaks. Are you confused by that sentence? Not sure what case we're talking about here? Maybe there were two Private Mannings who are now tied for the record of longest prison sentence in the history of this country for whistleblowing? It's hard to imagine that, more than 24 hours after Manning made her gender identity public through a written statement read on the Today show (8/22/13), any reader or viewer would not figure out pretty quickly who the news was talking […]
Chelsea Manning's announcement that she identifies as female and would prefer to be referred to that way seemed to befuddle many in the media, with some outlets apparently unclear about how to identify her.
Attacks on journalists should outrage every reporter--and anyone who cares about a free press.