This seems a bit late? Although the event wasn't emphasized by the war media (in order to pretend that Iran's retaliatory seizure of a British tanker was unprovoked), this boat was seized over a month ago. It will be transferred to American custody immediately after Assange is. That is, never.
Calling them "the war media" is almost as inflammatory as what you're accusing them off.
FWIW, I just checked two articles at the New York Times on recent Iranian tanker seizures. Both mention the previous British seizure. One even begins with a different (but IMO even better) legitimization of Iran's actions:
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Iran seized a foreign oil tanker in the Persian Gulf, state television reported on Sunday, the third time Tehran has reported detaining a tanker in the last month as the United States applies its campaign of “maximum pressure,” sanctions and diplomatic isolation against the country.
He is just fatigued by the media banging the drums of war. Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc. While not all around iglthe e are in support of military action it can feel like it at times. Mentally I already instantly write off articles when I see the headline and don't bother to read because the expectation is there.
But the media recently (Iraq 16 years ago, particularly in the case of the NYT, was a different story) isn't banging war drums. It is certainly reporting on the Administration’s bellicose rhetoric, but not particularly favorably.
There are so many details that it gets confusing sometimes. A world in which Trump didn't randomly decide to use the nuclear deal as a campaign issue would certainly be a better world than this one. However, I thought they were painted in their true colors when they all, with the single exception of Tucker freaking Carlson, cried when Trump didn't kill a bunch of Iranians in response to losing an uncrewed drone.
I would agree with the original poster to refer to them as “war media”. He is likely referring to the vast majority of MSM that is covering the news with a pro war agenda for the military industrial complex and the fossil fuel companies.
They have all sorts of different opinions on all sorts of topics. Unless the topic under discussion is a war that USA isn't fighting yet. In that case there is unanimity across media and ideologies. They all get the same retired generals on loan from Northrop to repeat all the same "talking points". I wondered where I had heard this "maximum pressure" phrase, and then I realized I've been watching too much MSNBC. [0] Andrea is hilarious there, with her tiny little question at the end about whether Iran's actions were justified. The "retired" admiral (now on the board of military contractor Caliburn International, which commercial affiliation MSNBC elides) assures her, "there is blame to go around!" Ha!
I can't agree with your "almost as inflammatory" formulation. War media lied us into Spanish-American War, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan, Iraq II, Libya, Syria, etc. This doesn't even mention the various "little" wars in Latin America and other locations, which the media didn't bother to market ahead of time but about which they gaslighted us whenever we learned of them. Millions of people are dead as a result. What name do they deserve more than "war media"?
I woke up from a nightmare last night. What I remember of it, is that I was struggling to get my disabled mother away from the bombs falling from the sky. She can't walk, and in my dream, she was telling me to let go.
Unlike most nightmares, I wasn't relieved after I woke up. As a matter of fact, we're too close for that nightmare to become our reality.
As an expat with his family back home, I follow US media with great concern. From the the drone shoot down to the tanker seizure, I see little to no nuance with the kind of narrative they create around this crisis.
It feels eerily familiar. It has too much in common with the months leading up to the 2003 Iraq war.
This happens across the political spectrum on mainstream media. One might expect the likes of Fox news to tell the most lopsided story. But when it came to this crisis, it was MSNBC that would host the most hawkish panels. In their effort to make the current administration look weak, they seem to spare no effort in showing Iran as completely in the wrong, and demanding the admin to respond with force, and mocking it when it does otherwise.
To them, it's a simple "tactic" on a single news cycle. To us, it could be one "tactic" too many, and our entire nation's hope for peace and prosperity is ruined for generations to come.
14 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 38.1 ms ] threadFWIW, I just checked two articles at the New York Times on recent Iranian tanker seizures. Both mention the previous British seizure. One even begins with a different (but IMO even better) legitimization of Iran's actions:
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Iran seized a foreign oil tanker in the Persian Gulf, state television reported on Sunday, the third time Tehran has reported detaining a tanker in the last month as the United States applies its campaign of “maximum pressure,” sanctions and diplomatic isolation against the country.
I can't agree with your "almost as inflammatory" formulation. War media lied us into Spanish-American War, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan, Iraq II, Libya, Syria, etc. This doesn't even mention the various "little" wars in Latin America and other locations, which the media didn't bother to market ahead of time but about which they gaslighted us whenever we learned of them. Millions of people are dead as a result. What name do they deserve more than "war media"?
[0] https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/new-audi...
Call the nytimes and ask them where the WMD are, maybe they know...
Unlike most nightmares, I wasn't relieved after I woke up. As a matter of fact, we're too close for that nightmare to become our reality.
As an expat with his family back home, I follow US media with great concern. From the the drone shoot down to the tanker seizure, I see little to no nuance with the kind of narrative they create around this crisis.
It feels eerily familiar. It has too much in common with the months leading up to the 2003 Iraq war.
This happens across the political spectrum on mainstream media. One might expect the likes of Fox news to tell the most lopsided story. But when it came to this crisis, it was MSNBC that would host the most hawkish panels. In their effort to make the current administration look weak, they seem to spare no effort in showing Iran as completely in the wrong, and demanding the admin to respond with force, and mocking it when it does otherwise.
To them, it's a simple "tactic" on a single news cycle. To us, it could be one "tactic" too many, and our entire nation's hope for peace and prosperity is ruined for generations to come.