Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Where Is the Afghanistan Debate?
When public support slips, TV packs in war boosters
With new polls showing the American public becoming increasingly critical of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, the Sunday morning network talkshows turned primarily to Pentagon officials and war boosters to discuss the issue, continuing the media marginalization of critics of the escalation of the war (Extra!, 4/09).
The most recent ABC/Washington Post poll (8/13-17/09) found that 51 percent of respondents believe the war is not worth fighting--the first time that position has received majority support. Just 24 percent supported sending more troops to Afghanistan, while 45 percent think the level of troops should be decreased.
As the New York Times reported (8/24/09): "The White House has been concerned about declining support for the war among the American public. After recent polls illustrating the decline, [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman] Admiral [Mike] Mullen and Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired general who is the ambassador to Afghanistan, went on Sunday talkshows to discuss the direction of the mission." Indeed, this pair of officials appeared the same morning (8/23/09) on both NBC's Meet the Press and CNN's State of the Union.
State of the Union host John King also presented "three U.S. senators from across the ideological spectrum [to] debate whether to send more troops to Afghanistan." The views expressed by Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, independent Joe Lieberman and Democrat Benjamin Cardin, though, could hardly be considered a debate: Lugar said that "everyone waits for General McChrystal to give, really, the outline of where we're headed, how many troops or whatever else is going to be required" while Cardin declared that "we need to make sure that Afghanistan and, quite frankly, the border with Pakistan is not a safe haven for terrorists," and "we now need to know what do we need to do as far as resources to accomplish that mission."
Lieberman, declaring that "we can't let the Taliban come back," suggested that the U.S. "give our troops and our civilians there...the support that they need as quickly as we can get it to them." ("Don't dribble it out, don't go for incrementalism," Lieberman warned.) Lugar concluded the segment by predicting that the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan would last "many, many years beyond" President Barack Obama's current term.
On ABC's This Week, Sen. John McCain gave his appraisal of Obama's conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (As the ABC web headline put it, "McCain: Obama Doing What I Would Do on Battlefields.") Host George Stephanopoulos asked McCain about the public's attitude towards the war: "The majority now say that it's not worth fighting. Two to one, they don't want more troops. The clock is ticking both with the public and Congress. You say 12 to 18 months. What do we need to see in 12 to 18 months to make sure the public and the Congress stay behind this war?" Note that the issue for the host is shaping public opinion to conform to the policy, rather than asking whether the policy should change in response to public opinion.
On the show's roundtable, conservative columnist George Will was the most forceful critic of the war (saying, "I think the American people are right about this"), while liberals Paul Krugman and Robert Reich downplayed both the political significance of the war and the importance of recent polls; Krugman said that he would like to ask Americans who are surveyed to find Afghanistan on a map.
CBS's Face the Nation did not feature a discussion of Afghanistan this week. Last week (8/16/09), the program featured former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, neither of whom seemed to have a strong opinion about the war.
It makes sense that government officials would try to reverse the trend of declining public support for the war by going on TV. But why are the networks allowing themselves to be used this way? Why is the corporate media response to rising dissatisfaction with the Afghanistan War not an effort to include that point of view in the discussion, but to bring on more officials to explain to the public why their opinions are wrong?
ACTION: Encourage the Sunday morning shows to acknowledge the public's views on Afghanistan by including peace advocates and other critics of the escalation of the war as guests on their programs.
CONTACT:
NBC's Meet the Press
Email: meetthepressquestions@nbcuni.com
Webform: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/ns/meet_the_press/
ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous
Email: thisweek@abc.com
CNN's State of the Union
Email: StateoftheUnion@CNN.com
CBS's Face the Nation
Email: ftn@cbsnews.com
Please post copies of your letters in the comments section on the FAIR Blog.
11 Comments so far
Show AllF.A.I.R.: Do you really want an answer to the question in the title of your piece? Have you never heard the term: "know which side of your bread is buttered." The media draws its "butter" (profit) from the enormous advertising revenues from the same corporate war industry that profits by the continuation of Afghanistan and all other wars. As to that small majority (51%) of the public "fed up" with the war: well, the only "butter" from them is their willingness to tune into the mindless chatter of celebrity gossip and unrealistic "reality" TV shows and buy the advertised products. Since most of this public have eyes glazed over by the dazzling figure of their President, and since the specific war in question is "Obama's war," there's little butter to be gained from any kind of critical treatment of that war, since it implies (gasp!) criticism of their hero. So when you come down to it, the answer to your question is an easy one and your "write to your news network" campaign won't produce anything effective to change their behavior, which is too rewarding to them just as it is to be changed.
Let's get something f@#king straight:
The USA is not officially nor Constitutionally in a State of War with any nation on Earth!
Stop. Calling. It. A. F@#king. War.
Maybe - just maybe - if "the people" understood that there is no declared war, they might start to get really pissed the f@#k off that our soldiers are dying, and being maimed both physically and psychologically, for no explainable reason.
Other than the whole pipeline/Caspian Sea control explainable reason, that is, which I guarantee less than .1 percent of Americans have ever even heard about...
One other talking point: if we're 'fighting terrorists over there' so we don't have to fight them 'over here,' then the 'terrorists over there' have killed 5,136 Americans so far, or 2 more 911s.
How is that considered "keeping Americans safe?"
"As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information."
Yes. So what's all this talk about Sunday morning talk shows? I haven't watched TV in many years. Any sensible person realizes that these shows only promote the dumbing down of the masses. Does FAIR think I should watch this crap so that I can email the various networks and tell them what I think? What will that do besides waste my time?
I don't attend any church services either. Should I begin now so that I can tell these sheeple what I think about their hateful, warmongering old testament god? Again, why waste my time?
There is a huge disconnect between persons like myself and the brainwashed masses. So what am I to do that's not a waste of time? Quit paying war taxes and stop this foolish belief in mythical sky creatures.
Responding to the SOS of congress and the media is agreeing to continue the pretended dialogue. We live in the empire, folks. Deal with it!
The debate about Afghanistan is not exactly front and center with progressives, either, much less a protest -- heaven forbid! Or should that be: Obama forbid! Or maybe MoveOn forbid!
Democrat Benjamin Cardin . . . declared that "we need to make sure that Afghanistan and, quite frankly, the border with Pakistan is not a safe haven for terrorists," and "we now need to know what do we need to do as far as resources to accomplish that mission."
Shove your thumb up your backside; in fact, shove both thumbs up your backside. That will ultimately prove to be about as successful as any other half-assed actions you and Obama and the permanent machinery of imperiali$m might contemplate.
FAIR asks:
"But why are the networks allowing themselves to be used this way? Why is the corporate media response to rising dissatisfaction with the Afghanistan War not an effort to include that point of view in the discussion, but to bring on more officials to explain to the public why their opinions are wrong?"
Ok, I guess someone has to say this... THOSE is the DUMBEST questions I have read in a long time! Are you serious? Are you really asking us to contemplate such stupid questions? How dumb do you think we are?
Herb Schiller, along with many competent high schoolers, answered these question 30 years ago. (The Mind Managers et al)
So, oh, I dunno, does it have anything to do with money and power and access to policy makers? Does it have anything to do with for-profit corporations that sell us to advertisers? Does it have anything to do with capitalism, empire, and the need to bolster the war economy?
Seriously, stop writing such retarded and naive questions. Stop taking your self so damn seriously as though you have to do the same studies over and over and over again, for 20 years, drawing the same damn conclusions each time. Stop acting surprised that for-profit systems will act like stenographers to the powerful.
You guys need to get with the program and start organizing alternatives, and start de-legitimizing journalism schools that make reporters brains shrink. Get in the trenches, get your hands dirty, and stop sounding like whiny liberals surprised that money talks, and bullshit (i.e. mythologies about objectivity/facts/truth coming out via corporations) walks.
We need our own media, there's no going back to some mythic glory days - and i've got news for you, they never existed unless we the movements owned and controlled our own media/voices.
"11164 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (212)633-6700 www.fair.org EIN#133392362 Disgusted with media lies and distortions? FAIR's watchdogs sniff out bias and censorship, dig up the truth behind and campaign for accountable journalism. 21.3% (of all revenues goes to "administrative"), R(civil rights, social action, advocacy), W (public, social benefit, multipurpose, other), Z(other)"
You ask why? Because THEY want your charitable donations! It has been 'hinted' that FAIR attacks those that George Soros tells them, though I couldn't say. The concept behind the organization is great, however, like you say, unless they provide an alternative, and work at the journalism school level, the efforts are going to waste (MY opinion).
Darn right, agitkid. Don't they know *anything*? It's not really ignorance. (They can't be that dumb.) Those kind of questions are like a low grade drug. They keep people in a mellow state of detachment from reality, like NPR, whose purpose seems to be to convince people that, yeah, you can be a cool (not to mention smug) liberal without much effort at all. You're still a corporate courtier, but a cool one...heh, heh.
The kind of dumb questions you mention are not benign. Their pervasiveness and blindness to the malignancy of the corporatocracy constitute a heavy, sticky mud that slows necessary significant action to a standstill.
It might be fair to state,...pun intended... that Fair and other liberal groupings simply refuse to give up their illusions about Obama and the Democratic Party, and that's why there is no 'debate' in the press about Barack continuing to carry out the wars that both parties' politicians began together long time ago.
It's true as others have pointed out that generals on sunday morning is basic war huckstering you should be used to by now.
But I don't think anyone has ever debated this heinous war crime since it started. the people (like me) who screamed then are still the only ones who complain.
you can see this reflected in the way everyone else treats obomber like a normal person, in spite of this lunatic drone bombing he's been carrying on, and is still giving every indication of continuing.
The concept of trying to prevent Afghanistan and Pakistan from giving "safe haven" to potential terrorists is certifiable madness.
Why ask why? Corporate news media is simply doing what it always does, which is support government policy. Surely we're all past such innocence.
More critical questions are, why has the American peace movement become nearly invisible, and why has it been afraid to say "Get out of Afghanistan"? Because that would mean opposing a Democratic president?