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
The PBS Left: 'Airstrikes Are Wonderful'
Sep 17, 2014
Every week, the PBS NewsHour gives viewers its version of a left/right debate segment. On the right is well-known conservative pundit David Brooks. On the left is Mark Shields, who is not especially well-known outside of the NewsHour, and certainly has no meaningful connection to leftish politics. As FAIR (Extra!, 7/98) has noted, Shields' publicity materials used to proclaim that he was "free of any political tilt."
On the most recent installment (NewsHour, 9/12/14), Shields was making the point that Congress should weigh in on any decision to launch military strikes against ISIS:
Here's the one power that is defined, delineated by the Constitution, that resides with the Congress, to declare war. And they have abdicated that responsibility.
Shields was clear: Going to war needs a serious discussion.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You said it needs a healthy debate. Is it getting that kind of debate right now?
MARK SHIELDS: No, it isn't.
Most people would agree that a debate over war sounds good. As someone who is paid to play the left on public television, what does Shields think about going to war? Well, something like this:
The United States military... has shown its ability, its capacity to come in and dominate the battlefield. But the idea of establishing order, security and peaceful government in its wake after that has eluded us.
Who are the troops who are going to be there to guarantee stability, order and some sense of justice in the areas?
You can't do that with airstrikes. I mean, airstrikes are wonderful. They're antiseptic. They're at a distance. The possibility of your own casualties is finite. But they don't occupy. You can't occupy a nation or bring order and stability by airstrikes. So who are people on the ground? Who is the coalition? Where are the troops coming from?
So the left view of Obama's war plan is that airstrikes "are wonderful," but that in order to really win there needs to be a ground invasion? Or is Shields' point that a ground invasion is necessary and therefore untenable? It's hard to tell. During an earlier discussion (NewsHour, 8/8/14), when he was asked if Obama had "a choice but to go back in militarily," Shields replied, "I don't think he did."
If Shields-and PBS, for that matter-believe in having a full debate about this war, they will need to find a more forceful critic of Obama's latest war.
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 |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Peter Hart
Peter Hart is the Domestic Communications Director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Every week, the PBS NewsHour gives viewers its version of a left/right debate segment. On the right is well-known conservative pundit David Brooks. On the left is Mark Shields, who is not especially well-known outside of the NewsHour, and certainly has no meaningful connection to leftish politics. As FAIR (Extra!, 7/98) has noted, Shields' publicity materials used to proclaim that he was "free of any political tilt."
On the most recent installment (NewsHour, 9/12/14), Shields was making the point that Congress should weigh in on any decision to launch military strikes against ISIS:
Here's the one power that is defined, delineated by the Constitution, that resides with the Congress, to declare war. And they have abdicated that responsibility.
Shields was clear: Going to war needs a serious discussion.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You said it needs a healthy debate. Is it getting that kind of debate right now?
MARK SHIELDS: No, it isn't.
Most people would agree that a debate over war sounds good. As someone who is paid to play the left on public television, what does Shields think about going to war? Well, something like this:
The United States military... has shown its ability, its capacity to come in and dominate the battlefield. But the idea of establishing order, security and peaceful government in its wake after that has eluded us.
Who are the troops who are going to be there to guarantee stability, order and some sense of justice in the areas?
You can't do that with airstrikes. I mean, airstrikes are wonderful. They're antiseptic. They're at a distance. The possibility of your own casualties is finite. But they don't occupy. You can't occupy a nation or bring order and stability by airstrikes. So who are people on the ground? Who is the coalition? Where are the troops coming from?
So the left view of Obama's war plan is that airstrikes "are wonderful," but that in order to really win there needs to be a ground invasion? Or is Shields' point that a ground invasion is necessary and therefore untenable? It's hard to tell. During an earlier discussion (NewsHour, 8/8/14), when he was asked if Obama had "a choice but to go back in militarily," Shields replied, "I don't think he did."
If Shields-and PBS, for that matter-believe in having a full debate about this war, they will need to find a more forceful critic of Obama's latest war.
Peter Hart
Peter Hart is the Domestic Communications Director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Every week, the PBS NewsHour gives viewers its version of a left/right debate segment. On the right is well-known conservative pundit David Brooks. On the left is Mark Shields, who is not especially well-known outside of the NewsHour, and certainly has no meaningful connection to leftish politics. As FAIR (Extra!, 7/98) has noted, Shields' publicity materials used to proclaim that he was "free of any political tilt."
On the most recent installment (NewsHour, 9/12/14), Shields was making the point that Congress should weigh in on any decision to launch military strikes against ISIS:
Here's the one power that is defined, delineated by the Constitution, that resides with the Congress, to declare war. And they have abdicated that responsibility.
Shields was clear: Going to war needs a serious discussion.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You said it needs a healthy debate. Is it getting that kind of debate right now?
MARK SHIELDS: No, it isn't.
Most people would agree that a debate over war sounds good. As someone who is paid to play the left on public television, what does Shields think about going to war? Well, something like this:
The United States military... has shown its ability, its capacity to come in and dominate the battlefield. But the idea of establishing order, security and peaceful government in its wake after that has eluded us.
Who are the troops who are going to be there to guarantee stability, order and some sense of justice in the areas?
You can't do that with airstrikes. I mean, airstrikes are wonderful. They're antiseptic. They're at a distance. The possibility of your own casualties is finite. But they don't occupy. You can't occupy a nation or bring order and stability by airstrikes. So who are people on the ground? Who is the coalition? Where are the troops coming from?
So the left view of Obama's war plan is that airstrikes "are wonderful," but that in order to really win there needs to be a ground invasion? Or is Shields' point that a ground invasion is necessary and therefore untenable? It's hard to tell. During an earlier discussion (NewsHour, 8/8/14), when he was asked if Obama had "a choice but to go back in militarily," Shields replied, "I don't think he did."
If Shields-and PBS, for that matter-believe in having a full debate about this war, they will need to find a more forceful critic of Obama's latest war.
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.