Last Sunday, Brian Stetler of CNN said he was concerned “about whether or not the media is stoking a war panic over the Islamic State militant group.” Stelter wondered whether members of the media were “letting their fears get the best of them, or their ideological agendas.” During a discussion with The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel, Stetler questioned whether the media was “pushing the president towards further escalation.” Jack Mirkinson (Huffington Post) noted “press reaction to the growing power of ISIS in Iraq and Syria has been dominated by hawkish voices…”
I touched on this subject of pundits and the members of the media being vocal about how our country should be gearing up for more military actions in the Mideast before in my post titled Iraq, the Mainstream Media, and the Neocon Reunion Tour. Mike Spindell also wrote a post about the media and pundits fear mongering about ISIS/ISIL in his post titled On the Eve of 9/11 the “New” terrorist con job begins.
Michael Calderone (Huffington Post) said that as the Obama administration “weighs whether it should try to manage the Islamic State, destroy it or follow it to the ‘gates of Hell,’ endless news coverage and non-stop cable chatter have focused on the possibility of expanding the fight from Iraq to Syria.” He added that many people “have argued that President Barack Obama needs to go beyond air strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq”… and should “begin targeting militants inside civil war-torn Syria.” He continued by saying that the “notion that Obama isn’t doing enough has been a common theme, regardless of party.”
The tabloid covers, and much of the current media frenzy, suggest a high level of urgency — that Obama needs to come up with a strategy and immediately carry it out. But does he?
The FBI and Homeland Security Department found the Islamic State has made no credible threats to the U.S. and the Defense Department expressed doubts about the organization’s “capability right now to conduct a major attack” on U.S. soil. Some politicians have raised the specter of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks when urging further action against the group, but National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen said Wednesday that the organization is “not al Qaeda pre 9/11.”
Brian Stetler: Press Panic over ISIS
It appears some people aren’t happy unless our country is constantly embroiled in wars or military actions in some part of the world. Little consideration is given for those who are sent abroad to risk their lives for those who hunger for war.
SOURCES & FURTHER READING
CNN’s Brian Stelter Says He Fears Media Provoking ISIS War Fever (Huffington Post)
Two Iraq War Supporters Urge Caution Amid ISIS Media Frenzy (Huffington Post)
Morning Plum: Is media putting thumb on scale for more war? (Washington Post)
Iraq, the Mainstream Media, and the Neocon Reunion Tour (Flowers for Socrates)
On the Eve of 9/11 the “New” terrorist con job begins (Flowers for Socrates)
Reblogged this on APS Newswire.
Pingback: “The End and the Beginning”: An Anti War Poem by Wislawa Szymborska (VIDEO) | Flowers For Socrates
I don’t understand ? Who do you think is Quarterbacking this Ship of State – the one in the Whitehouse or the screamers in the bleachers. I don’t pay taxes to have a Nation run by plebiscite.
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:
Thanks for pointing out that you are against one of the pillars of our Constitutional democratic republic.
Gene: I read buckaroo’s comment and thought exactly the same thing, but you beat me to it.
buckaroo: The definition of “plebiscite”: the direct vote of all the eligible members of an electorate on an important public question.
Rule by plebiscite is frequently used as a synonym for rule by voting in general. I think that is precisely why you pay taxes, to have a Nation run by plebiscite.
That’s like telling your dentist you didn’t hire him to be pokin’ around inside your mouth.
I always thought we had a Republic not a Democracy – Now why would the Founding Fathers do that ? You’ll & I are in different worlds !! Where are your readers on this ?
The form of government established by the Constitution is a constitutional presidential representative democratic republic.
You’d know this if you hadn’t slept through junior high civics and had even a minimal understanding of how Art. I and Art. II relate to the republic.
This is the problem with baggers. Most of them think they are Constitutional scholars and they are not. Worse still, like your ignorant statement above, they tend to operate from half knowledge that leads them to erroneous conclusions like the Founders didn’t create a democracy.
Run along now.
In Federalist 10, Madison defined a “pure democracy” as “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person,” and a republic as “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place.” … “The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater the number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.” i.e. to Madison, democracy meant direct democracy, and republic meant representative government.
But then at the Virginia ratifying convention, John Marshall said “Constitution provided for ‘a well regulated democracy’ where no king, or president, could undermine representative government.”
The framers were embarking on a grand experimental journey in building a government and the new terminology was not yet fully defined.
Now, 228 years later, it is.