SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
As New War Rages, Study Finds, Mainstream Media Silences Debate
New analysis finds little opposition in mainstream media to latest US military attacks on Middle East nations
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!
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.