Scoundrel Media Scorecard on Trump’s Syria Aggression

Scoundrel Media Scorecard on Trump’s Syria Aggression

by Stephen Lendman

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) kept score. On Tuesday, it said only one of 46 major media editorials opposed Trump’s aggression, explaining:
  • “83% of editorials” supported his action;
  • “15% (were) ambivalent;”
  • only “2 percent (Houston Chronicle editors alone)” opposed his attack – because of its illegality.
Eight of the nation’s top 10 broadsheets by circulation supported Trump’s action – “with varying degrees of qualification and concern,” said FAIR.
They include The NYT, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, cheerleading naked aggression against a sovereign state threatening no one.
The LA Times and San Jose Mercury News “were ambiguous, highlighting Trump’s past opposition to bombing Syria,” FAIR explained.
All 50 broadsheets accepted fabricated administration claims about Syria using CWs – despite no evidence proving it, not on April 4 or any previous time throughout over six years of war.
FAIR: “A consistent theme in (most) editorials was that the airstrikes were necessary, but Trump needed a broader strategy as well as a constitutional or congressional ‘framework.’ “
Overwhelming scoundrel media support for Trump’s attack follows their disturbing pattern of cheerleading all US wars of aggression – notably since the illegal 1991 Gulf War and rape of Yugoslavia.
When America goes to war or plans one, media scoundrels march in lockstep.
Rule of law principles don’t matter. Big Lies are accepted as justification.
Readers and viewers are consistently betrayed. Administration and Pentagon press agent reporting is featured over truth-telling, presstitution over journalism the way it’s supposed to be.
%d bloggers like this: