US Media’s Love Affair with War: Major Outlets Showed Zero Opposition to Syria Strikes

• US Media’s Love Affair with War: Major Outlets Showed Zero Opposition to Syria Strikes
  by https://www.rt.com/
  Media cheerleading for foreign conflict is nothing new. Coverage of President Trump’s latest airstrikes on Syria was no different, with no major newspaper’s editorial board opposing the strikes, according to a survey.
  –
  “Trump was right to strike Syria,” read the Washington Post. “One night’s good work,” read the New York Post. “We should feel proud as Americans. We did the right thing in Syria,” read the Toledo Blade.
  –
  The editorial board at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch were rabid in their calls for total armageddon, in an article that read: “The response must not be limited to a single strike like the one a year ago. This time, it should be sustained and punishing, not just to get Assad’s attention but also that of Iran, Hezbollah and, most importantly, Russia.”
  …
  Trump, the president who once vowed to “bomb the sh*t out of” Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) but refrain from entering into regime-change adventures around the world, spent over $125 million launching Tomahawk missiles at government targets in Syria last weekend, with the cooperation of Britain and France. The attack on Syria was launched without congressional or UN approval.
  –
  Out of 26 newspaper editorials on the strikes, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) found no dissenting voices. The New York Times quibbled about the lack of approval, but did not disagree with the strikes. “It was reassuring,” the board wrote, that the airstrikes were carried out in coordination with Britain and France.
  –
  The fact that Assad’s government had not yet been internationally proven responsible for the attacks mattered little. Nor did the historic consequences of foreign intervention based on social media evidence, which saw the US spend over a decade and a trillion dollars in Iraq.
  –
  read more.

end