President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes on Syria on Friday night as retaliation for a suspected chemical attack that he accused President Bashar al-Assad of waging on civilians. (Photo: Fair.org)
Apr 14, 2018
The curators of American public opinion at the three most influential broadsheets in the United States have decided that dissent from the build-up to new airstrikes on Syria is not really an opinion worth hearing. Of 16 columns leveling an opinion about "fresh" airstrikes on the Syrian regime in the coming days, only two--both in the Washington Post (4/12/18, 4/12/18)--opposed the airstrikes. No New York Times or Wall Street Journal opinion piece came out against a renewed attack on Syria.
Ten expressly supported the airstrikes (three in the Times, five in the Post and two in the Journal), two did so by implication (both in the Times, both lamenting the US "doing nothing" in Syria), two were ambiguous and two were opposed to the airstrikes. A complete list of the columns can be reviewed here.
This is slightly less unanimous than the level of support Trump's airstrikes on Syrian air bases received from the media last year, when only one out of 47 editorial boards failed to back the escalation (FAIR.org, 4/11/17).
On the issue of launching airstrikes against the Assad government, robust debate is nonexistent. Major publications take the bulk of the premises for war for granted--namely the US's legal and moral right to wage it--and simply parse over the details (FAIR.org, 4/12/18). The Washington Post editorial board (4/9/18), unsatisfied with what they view as token airstrikes, calls for Trump to not just launch "a few cruise missiles," but for a "concerted strategy" of open-ended "US military initiatives." This, of course, includes additional permanent military bases scattered throughout Syria.
As Trump and leaders from France and Britain gear up for war in the coming days, if not hours, perhaps opinion editors could make a little more space for those who oppose the possible opening up of a whole new theater of war.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Our Summer Campaign is now underway, and there’s never been a more urgent time for Common Dreams to be as vigilant as possible. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Adam Johnson
Adam Johnson is a New York-based journalist, a contributing analyst for FAIR.org, and co-host of the Citations Needed podcast.
The curators of American public opinion at the three most influential broadsheets in the United States have decided that dissent from the build-up to new airstrikes on Syria is not really an opinion worth hearing. Of 16 columns leveling an opinion about "fresh" airstrikes on the Syrian regime in the coming days, only two--both in the Washington Post (4/12/18, 4/12/18)--opposed the airstrikes. No New York Times or Wall Street Journal opinion piece came out against a renewed attack on Syria.
Ten expressly supported the airstrikes (three in the Times, five in the Post and two in the Journal), two did so by implication (both in the Times, both lamenting the US "doing nothing" in Syria), two were ambiguous and two were opposed to the airstrikes. A complete list of the columns can be reviewed here.
This is slightly less unanimous than the level of support Trump's airstrikes on Syrian air bases received from the media last year, when only one out of 47 editorial boards failed to back the escalation (FAIR.org, 4/11/17).
On the issue of launching airstrikes against the Assad government, robust debate is nonexistent. Major publications take the bulk of the premises for war for granted--namely the US's legal and moral right to wage it--and simply parse over the details (FAIR.org, 4/12/18). The Washington Post editorial board (4/9/18), unsatisfied with what they view as token airstrikes, calls for Trump to not just launch "a few cruise missiles," but for a "concerted strategy" of open-ended "US military initiatives." This, of course, includes additional permanent military bases scattered throughout Syria.
As Trump and leaders from France and Britain gear up for war in the coming days, if not hours, perhaps opinion editors could make a little more space for those who oppose the possible opening up of a whole new theater of war.
Adam Johnson
Adam Johnson is a New York-based journalist, a contributing analyst for FAIR.org, and co-host of the Citations Needed podcast.
The curators of American public opinion at the three most influential broadsheets in the United States have decided that dissent from the build-up to new airstrikes on Syria is not really an opinion worth hearing. Of 16 columns leveling an opinion about "fresh" airstrikes on the Syrian regime in the coming days, only two--both in the Washington Post (4/12/18, 4/12/18)--opposed the airstrikes. No New York Times or Wall Street Journal opinion piece came out against a renewed attack on Syria.
Ten expressly supported the airstrikes (three in the Times, five in the Post and two in the Journal), two did so by implication (both in the Times, both lamenting the US "doing nothing" in Syria), two were ambiguous and two were opposed to the airstrikes. A complete list of the columns can be reviewed here.
This is slightly less unanimous than the level of support Trump's airstrikes on Syrian air bases received from the media last year, when only one out of 47 editorial boards failed to back the escalation (FAIR.org, 4/11/17).
On the issue of launching airstrikes against the Assad government, robust debate is nonexistent. Major publications take the bulk of the premises for war for granted--namely the US's legal and moral right to wage it--and simply parse over the details (FAIR.org, 4/12/18). The Washington Post editorial board (4/9/18), unsatisfied with what they view as token airstrikes, calls for Trump to not just launch "a few cruise missiles," but for a "concerted strategy" of open-ended "US military initiatives." This, of course, includes additional permanent military bases scattered throughout Syria.
As Trump and leaders from France and Britain gear up for war in the coming days, if not hours, perhaps opinion editors could make a little more space for those who oppose the possible opening up of a whole new theater of 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.