Debating How--Not Whether--to Launch a New War Missing perspectives on Obamas attack on ISIS By Peter Hart fair.org/extra-online-articles/debating-how-not-whether-to-launch-a-new-war/ From September 7 through September 21, FAIR analyzed the major Sunday chat shows (NBC’s Meet the Press, CBS’s Face the Nation, ABC’s This Week, Fox News Sunday and CNN’s State of the Union), several cable news shows (the first hour of CNN’s Situation Room, MSNBC’s Hardball and Fox’s Special Report) and the PBS NewsHour. The study analyzed the interview and debate/discussion segments that were focused on the question of attacking Iraq and Syria. Soundbites in taped segments were not counted. Guests were coded by partisan affiliation and relevant occupation, and whether or not they expressed a clear position on the US military strikes in Iraq, Syria or both. Sources were coded as being pro–military intervention, anti–military intervention or taking no strong position on the question. In total, 205 sources appeared on the programs discussing military options in Syria and Iraq. Just six of these, or 3 percent, voiced opposition to US military intervention, while 125 (61 percent) spoke in favor of US war. On the high-profile Sunday talkshows, 89 guests were invited to talk about the war. But just one, Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, could be coded as an anti-war guest. The guestlists for all the programs leaned heavily on politicians and military insiders. Current and former US government officials—politicians and White House officials—made up 37 percent of the guestlists. Current and former military officials accounted for 7 percent of sources. Journalists of various stripes—pundits, columnists and correspondents—made up 46 percent of the sources who appeared on the shows to discuss the wars. Democrats outnumbered Republicans, 53-36, mostly due to the heavy presence of Obama administration officials advocating for White House policy.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:25:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015