When it comes to asking hard questions about war, don't count on the corporate and mainstream press, new study finds. (Image: MSNBC/screengrab)
Nov 14, 2014
While Congress may soon debate the ongoing US wars in Iraq and Syria, a new FAIR study shows that at the critical moments leading up to the escalation of US military action, mainstream media presented almost no debate at all.
The study of key TV news discussion programs from September 7 through 21 reveals that guests who opposed war were scarce.
The study evaluated discussion and debate segments on the Sunday talk shows (CNN's State of the Union, CBS's Face the Nation, ABC's This Week, Fox News Sunday and NBC's Meet the Press), the PBS NewsHour and a sample of cable news programs that feature roundtables and interview segments (CNN's Situation Room, Fox News Channel's Special Report and MSNBC's Hardball).
The key findings:
- In total, 205 sources appeared on the programs discussing military options in Syria and Iraq. Just six of these guests, or 3 percent, voiced opposition to US military intervention. There were 125 guests (61 percent) who spoke in favor of US war.
- On the high-profile Sunday talk shows, 89 guests were invited to talk about the war. But just one, Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, could be coded as an anti-war guest.
- Guestlists leaned heavily on politicians and military insiders. Current and former US government officials--politicians and White House officials--made up 37 percent of the guestlists. Current and former military officials accounted for 7 percent of sources. Journalists made up 46 percent of the sources.
- Democrats outnumbered Republicans, 53-36, mostly due to the heavy presence of Obama administration officials advocating for White House military policy.
The study period covered what should have been a moment of serious debate: From the release of ISIS video beheadings of two American journalists through Obama's September 10 televised address and right up to the first US airstrikes on Syria.
But the question of whether to launch attacks was hardly worth debating. As MSNBC host Chris Matthews put it (9/9/14), "When it comes to down to how we fight this, everybody seems to be for air attacks, airstrikes. Everybody is for drone attacks."
One would definitely get that impression from the narrow debate in elite media.
The study appears in the November issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (Fair)
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986.
While Congress may soon debate the ongoing US wars in Iraq and Syria, a new FAIR study shows that at the critical moments leading up to the escalation of US military action, mainstream media presented almost no debate at all.
The study of key TV news discussion programs from September 7 through 21 reveals that guests who opposed war were scarce.
The study evaluated discussion and debate segments on the Sunday talk shows (CNN's State of the Union, CBS's Face the Nation, ABC's This Week, Fox News Sunday and NBC's Meet the Press), the PBS NewsHour and a sample of cable news programs that feature roundtables and interview segments (CNN's Situation Room, Fox News Channel's Special Report and MSNBC's Hardball).
The key findings:
- In total, 205 sources appeared on the programs discussing military options in Syria and Iraq. Just six of these guests, or 3 percent, voiced opposition to US military intervention. There were 125 guests (61 percent) who spoke in favor of US war.
- On the high-profile Sunday talk shows, 89 guests were invited to talk about the war. But just one, Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, could be coded as an anti-war guest.
- Guestlists leaned heavily on politicians and military insiders. Current and former US government officials--politicians and White House officials--made up 37 percent of the guestlists. Current and former military officials accounted for 7 percent of sources. Journalists made up 46 percent of the sources.
- Democrats outnumbered Republicans, 53-36, mostly due to the heavy presence of Obama administration officials advocating for White House military policy.
The study period covered what should have been a moment of serious debate: From the release of ISIS video beheadings of two American journalists through Obama's September 10 televised address and right up to the first US airstrikes on Syria.
But the question of whether to launch attacks was hardly worth debating. As MSNBC host Chris Matthews put it (9/9/14), "When it comes to down to how we fight this, everybody seems to be for air attacks, airstrikes. Everybody is for drone attacks."
One would definitely get that impression from the narrow debate in elite media.
The study appears in the November issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (Fair)
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986.
While Congress may soon debate the ongoing US wars in Iraq and Syria, a new FAIR study shows that at the critical moments leading up to the escalation of US military action, mainstream media presented almost no debate at all.
The study of key TV news discussion programs from September 7 through 21 reveals that guests who opposed war were scarce.
The study evaluated discussion and debate segments on the Sunday talk shows (CNN's State of the Union, CBS's Face the Nation, ABC's This Week, Fox News Sunday and NBC's Meet the Press), the PBS NewsHour and a sample of cable news programs that feature roundtables and interview segments (CNN's Situation Room, Fox News Channel's Special Report and MSNBC's Hardball).
The key findings:
- In total, 205 sources appeared on the programs discussing military options in Syria and Iraq. Just six of these guests, or 3 percent, voiced opposition to US military intervention. There were 125 guests (61 percent) who spoke in favor of US war.
- On the high-profile Sunday talk shows, 89 guests were invited to talk about the war. But just one, Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, could be coded as an anti-war guest.
- Guestlists leaned heavily on politicians and military insiders. Current and former US government officials--politicians and White House officials--made up 37 percent of the guestlists. Current and former military officials accounted for 7 percent of sources. Journalists made up 46 percent of the sources.
- Democrats outnumbered Republicans, 53-36, mostly due to the heavy presence of Obama administration officials advocating for White House military policy.
The study period covered what should have been a moment of serious debate: From the release of ISIS video beheadings of two American journalists through Obama's September 10 televised address and right up to the first US airstrikes on Syria.
But the question of whether to launch attacks was hardly worth debating. As MSNBC host Chris Matthews put it (9/9/14), "When it comes to down to how we fight this, everybody seems to be for air attacks, airstrikes. Everybody is for drone attacks."
One would definitely get that impression from the narrow debate in elite media.
The study appears in the November issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.