How rah, rah YAY War! will US Media Outlets be?

[lokisnow]

With the United States launching its newest war tonight to avenge the deaths of two people killed by terrorists, and with the media of the United States largely ecstatic about the prospect (presumably because the two people killed by terrorists were part of the media), how enthusiastic in cheerleading another useless war doomed to failure will the media be?

Fox News is the biggest Question Mark to me. Usually there is nothing Fox News likes better than launching pointless wars to kill brown people in far-away-lands, but there is nothing Fox News likes better than opposing everything President Obama likes. Right now President Obama likes the prospect of launching a pointless war to kill brown people in far-away-lands... how will Fox news react to the cognitive dissonance of this? Oppose the war and oppose Obama or support the war and support Obama? I'm really curious how this plays out.

CNN, being their usual useless selves will doubtlessly be ecstatic at the prospect of high war ratings and support it stronger than any other US media outlet. They'll rah rah cover the war endlessly and be contemptible in their drooling adoration of another useless war.

NPR, it seems, is going to be their usual "totally neutral, dude," selves. I was pretty surprised yesterday to hear All Things Considered question a rah rah war democrat HoR member on why they've flipflopped on the issue of war from last year to this year. The tone of the broadcast was not anti war, but it's the only national media coverage I've seen that wasn't radidly and insistently pro war. I'm not sure neutrality is opposition to the war, but all the other national media outlets have defaulted to the position that of course we are going to war, so NPR seems to be the only one resisting that pro-war default position in their striving to stay neutral.

Based on what I've read, it looks like the LA Times is going to split the difference between NPR and CNN, somewhat neutral, but leaning pro war. They don't seem quite as frothing at the mouth eager for war as CNN though.

In terms of network TV, we watch the NBC for news in the morning. They seem about like the LA Times, leaning pro war, not terribly enthusiastic, but relatively unquestioning of the prospect of war, and not an iota of opposition to going to war.

The NY Times seems a bit more CNN like to me: war will be good for business and a refusal to question whether or not we should be going to war, just happily on the bandwagon to go to war no matter what.

Bloomberg View is a pretty interesting mix of opinions, but seems to skew relatively pro war.

Andrew Sullivan is the only media institution I know of that is resolutely against war.

[Wise Fool]

Fox will oppose Obama, but support the war in general, by saying that he's evil and stupid and weak and doing it all wrong.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Locksnow,

Link? Are we putting boots back on the ground in Iraq or on the ground in Syria?

[Davos OnionKing]

Fox will oppose Obama, but support the war in general, by saying that he's evil and stupid and weak and doing it all wrong.

Pretty much. They will manage to play both sides with equal assholedness.

[Hutch]

Sadly I think the media will be all over it, until tomorrow afternoon when Bieber or a Kardashian does something.

[Diziet]

You should mention The Intercept as an example of anti-war outlets. Especially if you're counting Andrew Sullivan as a media institution.

[Davos OnionKing]

Locksnow,

Link? Are we putting boots back on the ground in Iraq or on the ground in Syria?

I assume your contention is the term "war", to which I would somewhat agree. This will not be a declaration of war in the literal sense, but will nonetheless lay the ground for military airstrikes of some sort.

[IheartIheartTesla]

This is probably the only time I will pay more attention to what (non-interventionalist leaning) libertarians are saying.

[lokisnow]

Locksnow,

Link? Are we putting boots back on the ground in Iraq or on the ground in Syria?

Sullivan has been linking in his coverage of the enthusiastic media reaction to launching a dumb war of vengeance in the middle east:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/10/the-nightmare-scenario/

As the president launches a new war against an elusive, asymmetrical opponent, with as yet no solid regional allies, fueled by pure emotion, I have to wonder who it was we elected. I’m going to listen carefully tonight – but so far, this strikes me quite simply an an almost text-book case of what someone once called “a dumb war”.

First off, the public support for war is almost entirely a function of the powerful imagery of two beheadings. It is not a sober reflection on how best to defend ourselves from Salafist terror and theocracy. It is based on little but fear and panic and hysteria:

47% of Americans believe the country is less safe now than before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. That’s a significant increase from even a year after the twin towers fell when in September 2002 just 20% of the country said the nation was less safe. The level of fear across America also is up substantially from last year when 28% felt the same way.

This is not a rational conclusion. The change came almost entirely from last month:

A whopping 94 percent of Americans say they have heard about the news of the beheaded journalists – higher than any other news event the NBC/WSJ poll has measured over the past five years. That includes the 2011 debt-ceiling debate (77 percent), the 2012 health-care decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (78 percent), Syria’s reported use of chemical weapons in 2013 (79 percent) and this year’s botched execution in Oklahoma (68 percent).

That is the biggest media coup for the Salafists since the Towers fell. Americans have shown themselves to be terrified beyond measure by a group of religious fanatics controlling an area about the size of Maryland – so terrified, in fact, that they want to make Syria’s and Iraq’s civil wars our war, to own them and their outcome. George Friedman makes the sane and obvious point:

The Islamic State – engaged in war with everyone around it – is much less dangerous to the United States than a small group with time on its hands, planning an attack. In any event, if the Islamic State did not exist, the threat to the United States from jihadist groups in Yemen or Libya or somewhere inside the United States would remain.

The key thing is to have a sensible grip on what the actual threat really is, rather than reacting like scared school-children in a horror movie. And the threat is primarily to ISIS’s neighbors. How scared are they – and how determined are they to fight? Well, the Iraqis themselves still haven’t filled out a cabinet that can reconcile both Sunnis and Shi’a and Kurds in a unified push against the latest insurgency. Turkey is more concerned, it appears, with the fate of 49 hostages now held by ISIS. Saudi Arabia? Twiddling its thumbs when it isn’t fueling Salafist fanaticism. Iran? Sure, they can and will help – but only in a way likely to inflame Sunni paranoia and fuel sectarian divisions. Assad? Well, this is the scenario he long predicted, isn’t it?

The obvious response of the US should be to coax and goad and guide a regional coalition against ISIS without direct intervention. And the core of that coalition must be Sunni, or this will devolve into one more ripple in the Shiite-Sunni ocean of mutual hatred and conflict. Friedman again:

The point is that there is a tactic that will fail: American re-involvement. There is a tactic that will succeed: the United States making it clear that while it might aid the pacification in some way, the responsibility is on regional powers. The inevitable outcome will be a regional competition that the United States can manage far better than the current chaos.

But that does not seem to be Obama’s idea right now. We are declaring our commitment to destroying ISIS before the regional actors have fully declared theirs. Now the Turks and the Iraqis and the Saudis can sit back and have the US do their work for them, turning the Salafist terror away from themselves and toward the West. Having the hegemon solve their problems is win-win for them, even as we will get no thanks, and no friends, and many more enemies … if we succeed.

One reason why I oppose this new Iraq War, in other words, is that I fear that it could well increase the threat to the US, rather than reduce it. Our panicked response to two executions in a distant desert could actually lead to a far greater wave of Jihadist terror than would otherwise be the case. They’ll now be aiming for New York as much as Baghdad. We’ve all but dared them.

Then there is the domestic part – and the most depressing. Obama – despite what he did with Syria, and despite his campaign pledges – wants to launch a new war in Iraq and Syria on his own presidential authority. At a time when we desperately need a careful consideration of a war’s potential unintended consequences, a deliberative debate in the Senate on the pros and cons of this new adventure in Arabia, Obama only wants a rubber stamp for a war already underway. The Republicans, moreover, in ever more cynical fashion, will be quite happy to let Obama take all the responsibility and all of the blame for the next Middle East nightmare, while taking no responsibility for the war themselves. That way, they can blame Obama for failure, and claim credit for success, while never playing the essential constitutional role they are supposed to play.

To recap: we are going to war with no clear exit plan; we are doing so before the regional allies have been forced to take a stand; Obama is shouldering all of the responsibility himself, based on a hysterical public mood that could evaporate in a month’s time. To argue that this is a reneging of everything Obama ran on is an understatement. Even Bush went to Congress for a vote before the Iraq War. And the legitimization of panic and fear and hysteria undoes so much of what Obama had previously achieved in amending US foreign policy.

I will listen carefully tonight. I will give him a chance to persuade me. But this is such a bitter pill to swallow.

Each article has links covering the media's gallop to embrace war:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/09/not-mission-creep-mission-gallop/

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/10/the-jubilation-of-the-hegemonists/

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/10/obamas-isis-gamble/

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/10/no-dont-ally-with-assad/

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/08/are-we-being-baited/

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/09/wars-dumb-wars-and-permanent-war/

[lokisnow]

538 is surprisingly pro war as they denigrate Udall for committing a gaffe by being cautious, smart and level headed:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-a-fresh-look-at-the-changed-race-in-kansas/

During a debate with his Republican challenger, Cory Gardner, Democratic Colorado Sen. Mark Udall said the journalists killed by ISIS “would tell us, ‘Don’t be impulsive. Horrible and barbarous as those executions were, don’t be impulsive, come up with a plan to knock ISIL back.’ ” Udall’s comments were tone-deaf, but they probably won’t have any long-term effect on his campaign.

With the writers at Vox mostly being part of the diseased DC diaspora, I expect they'll be enormously prowar hawks, but with some NPR esque bleating to try and preserve an aura of neutrality.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Slowing or stopping ISIS seems a bit more than a mere "war for vengance". ISIS is seriously bad news and allowing it to really get established seems like a bad policy.

[Davos OnionKing]

An aside to the discussion, why is this speech occuring on the eve of 9/11? Is it an unfortunate coincidence or a really shitty ploy at manipulating us emotionally?

[The Notorious]

Slowing or stopping ISIS seems a bit more than a mere "war for vengance". ISIS is seriously bad news and allowing it to really get established seems like a bad policy.

It's the same rhetorical framing that isolationists like to deploy. Although I'm surprise that the media narrative has been increasingly taking a difference stance.

[Fragile Bird]

Our current prime minister, Stephen Harper, demanded that we join the coalition in Iraq when he was leader of the opposition. Our then-prime minister declined. The Government has been ramping up the rhetoric against ISIS, just Monday saying they were the worst danger the world has faced in this generation. We are sending 100 technical advisers to Iraq for a 30 days. The government spokespeople, in response to people saying what do you mean, 30 days, how can that be true, with the response that the 30 day is `just an assessment period`.

I have no doubt the timing with 9-11 is deliberate.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FB,

Have you watched the Vice News reports on ISIS?

[Fragile Bird]

I have not specifically watched the Vice News (great agency, founded by Canadians in Montreal, with a government grant) but I have heard many reports about their brutality and have seen videos of young men telling the world that they are coming after us next.

It took us three-quarters of a century to disconnect the umbilical cord from Mother Britain, to stop jumping when she said jump. I do not care for switching the umbilical cord to the USA, Ser Scot. I preferred our decades long role as honest broker on the world scene, not American boot licker as we are seen now.

[Howdyphillip]

Locksnow,

Link? Are we putting boots back on the ground in Iraq or on the ground in Syria?

I have read that it will be an increase in bombing...

[IheartIheartTesla]

Slowing or stopping ISIS seems a bit more than a mere "war for vengance". ISIS is seriously bad news and allowing it to really get established seems like a bad policy.

Assad is also seriously bad news....but I guess ISIS is a clear and present danger to the US because...well no one has made that case yet cogently.

The two journalists being killed are tragic indeed, but I think we need to be a little less emotional in the way we pursue wars.

[Fez]

Meh. When people start talking about ground troops I'll start getting upset, but a bombing campaign? Those are a dime a dozen in US foreign policy history, and we've already been hitting ISIS regularly for over a month. Hardly a war.

[DanteGabriel]

Of course the corporate media backs war, or at least fails to present the unsavory negative sides of it. They are all owned by companies who stand to make a lot of money off war. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Fox spent the first night's coverage showing footage of explosions and tracer fire over Baghdad, scored to swelling, inspirational music. It was a fucking music video of jingoistic war-mongery. And MSNBC, the putative left-wing cable news outfit, was until recently owned by GE, a defense contractor.

The best commentary I ever saw on the corporate media's stance in a time of war a Daily Show sketch from the early days of the 2003 Iraq invasion, when Stephen Colbert was still on the show, fine-tuning his conservative blowhard persona:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/mcde90/ass-whomping