Most of my television time is consumed watching sports or children’s programming, but I try to get in a little MSNBC, too. And I haven’t seen any hosts on that network who are in favor of punitive airstrikes against Syria. I remember when Bush wanted to go to war and MSNBC starting firing anyone who wasn’t on board. Back then, Chris Matthews thought that George W. Bush in a flight-suit had a “sunny nobility” about him.

I’d like to think we’ve made some progress in terms of how the press treats the government. In other words, we now have a media with a much healthier skepticism about what the government says and what they want to do.

But, still, why all the deference to BushCo.? Why aren’t left-leaning journalists lining up to get the president’s back? Is it war fatigue? The fear from 9/11 has worn off? Obama doesn’t scaremonger effectively enough? Only Republicans get to start armed conflicts?

Or is it simply that getting more deeply involved in Syria’s civil war is a transparently bad idea?

In any case, I’m not sure it’s really a double standard, but the press is behaving much differently this time around. And, yet, still they are being too deferential.

0 0 votes
Article Rating