mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
The Libyan Afterparty Continues
Our Press Falls Down on the Job Again
Features Icon
show comments
  • Beauceron

    The press hasn’t fallen down.
    Our press is part of the Left. The Democrats are part of the Left. They are on the same team and they work together. Saying they fell down implies they believe they have a duty to be balanced and fair. They no longer believe that. They believe they have a duty to fight for their side, to make sure it succeeds.
    How many times over the past 8 years have you looked at a story, usually buried on the back pages or deep within a larger article, and thought “if this were a Republican president (or Secretary of State, or Senator, etc.) this would be covered 24/7 and shouted from every media rooftop? I have stopped counting.
    This is how a country slides slowly, step by step into tyranny. This is how totalitarian systems form and coalesce. I look at so much of what happens on the Left, and how they practice politics, and it has gotten very Orwellian of late.

    • Arkeygeezer

      Fortunately, the internet has restored the balance. You have a lot of the print, broadcast, and cable media on the left, balanced by the information on the internet. The Lybia, IRS, and Hillary’s health issues have been thoroughly discussed on various websites. Donald Trump campaigns mostly on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube much to the chagrin of the “main stream” media. The “main stream” is getting diluted by the “on stream” media.

      • Beauceron

        I don’t think that’s true, exactly.
        The internet has made it difficult for the partisan press to maintain a lie for readers who actively seek out the truth.
        But how many Americans do that? I think most watch the mainstream TV news, read their local paper or get news from places like the Daily Show or the Tonight Show.

        • Arkeygeezer

          Then why isn’t Trump being routed in the polls?

          • Boritz

            Hillary’s support comes from those who don’t care what she is done and those who don’t know what she has done. Nothing really can be done about the former group. But the latter group can be augmented by the press and they’re doing everything they can.

    • LarryD

      As Instapundit puts it “just think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense”

      Really, they stopped even pretending to be non-partisan years ago. It wouldn’t be bad if the press reflected the political spectrum of the country, but they’re almost all Left, all the time. The echo chamber on campus has its roots in the press.

  • Anthony
  • Boritz

    “that’s not the way history works”

    The way history works is there are sides and you want to “be on the right side”. We’ve been assured of this by the best people.

  • lukelea

    After Iraq, this one was easy to call from the get-go. That’s what makes it so interesting. What was Hillary thinking?

  • (((kingschitz)))

    The press can longer be read per se, but has to be interpreted, much like Russians once did with Pravda. The Davoisi and other elites are so enbubbled that media is one of the few frontiers still shared between them and actual Americans. Given elite narcissism, the press functions as a sort of class diary, in which our betters communicate (or in many cases conspicuously fail to communicate) their own concerns—race, guns, various rights, celebrity cults—while ignoring what no longer interests them, chiefly the concerns of national security and working class issues.

    Put it this way: Pinch Sulzberger will never meet me, but I get to meet him every day.

  • PierrePendre

    Nobody is ever going to get everything right in foreign policy, but … you’d expect the State Department to be righter than most. In the Middle East, this is not the case. In Libya, either State was as ignorant as the politicians about the realities of the country or it allowed the politicians to overrule it and did nothing about it.

    As the chaos in Libya grew after Gaddafi was killed, it emerged that he had been the essential glue which had held a volatile country of rival tribes and factions together in a functioning state for 40 years. Après him, it certainly was the deluge. Did State’s professionals know that, however rebarbative he was to the West, Gaddafi was the crux on which Libya rested? Did they tell Clinton and warn Obama. (Did the FO tell Cameron and the Quai d’Orsay Sarkozy for that matter?)

    The war grew out of claims from an anti-Gaddafi rebel faction in Benghazi that he was on his way to kill them all (i.e. commit genocide) and this message was carried to the West by Sarkozy’s friend Bernard-Henri Lévy who made himself a spokesman for the rebels. Was this true or did Clinton, Cameron and Sarkozy see an opportunity to strike at their old enemy in an apparently good cause that would soothe anti-war liberals?

    Between them, they destroyed Libya as a functioning state and enabled the murder of an American ambassador by the very people in Benghazi they said they had set out to assist.

    All three Western leaders (or four if you count Obama who kept his head down) have escaped blame for what was a war crime and so has the State Department which should have know what was fundamentally wrong with the decision to help kill a foreign head of state and did not stop them.

    Clinton still trumpets this humanitarian disaster, which cost thousands of lives, as an exemplary use of smart power and it would be naive to expect the corrupt Western media to shake itself out of its thrall to Obama long enough to question a Democratic administration. They excuse themselves by claiming that absolutely everything is secondary to the imperative of defeating the egregious Trump but one wonders, looking a Clinton’s record, whether they might not have the odd inkling of scruple.

    Trump is potentially culpable; Clinton is proven culpable which seems to me to be worse.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service