US Media Issues
An exchange with a reader on “Liberal television host Rachel Maddow solidarizes herself with US military in Afghanistan”
By David Walsh, 20 July 2010
The WSWS responds to a reader about television host Rachel Maddow’s attitude toward the war in Afghanistan.
Liberal television host Rachel Maddow solidarizes herself with US military in Afghanistan
By David Walsh, 15 July 2010
The visit by MSNBC news program host Rachel Maddow to Afghanistan in early July was as revealing as it was repugnant.
CNN fires senior Mideast editor over comments on cleric
By David Walsh, 9 July 2010
CNN’s firing of Octavia Nasr, its senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs, for expressing respect for a Shiite cleric, is a right-wing, cowardly act.
Army charges soldier for leaking video of US massacre in Baghdad
By Barry Grey, 7 July 2010
The United States Army on Monday filed charges against Private 1st Class Bradley Manning, accusing the 22-year-old of giving a video of a US military massacre in Baghdad to the WikiLeaks web site.
Washington “discovers” Afghanistan’s mineral wealth
By Alex Lantier, 15 June 2010
The New York Times’ description of Pentagon plans to hand over Afghan mineral riches to major international mining corporations and financial firms exposes the imperialist character of the NATO occupation of Afghanistan.
Letters on Glenn Beck, socialism and anti-Semitism
15 June 2010
A selection of letters on a recent David Walsh article, “US cable television host slanders socialism.”
US cable television host slanders socialism
By David Walsh, 10 June 2010
Glenn Beck is a reactionary know-nothing who hosts a commentary program on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel in the US. On his June 3 program Beck offered an incoherent tirade alleging “a rich history… of socialism and anti-Semitism.”
Helen Thomas ousted over anti-Zionist comments
By Patrick Martin, 9 June 2010
The ouster of veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas, after an anti-Israeli comment, is yet another demonstration of the politically foul and utterly conformist milieu of official Washington.
Frank Rich on Obama: Liberal fears and illusions
By Barry Grey, 8 June 2010
In a column published Sunday, New York Times commentator Frank Rich expresses the mounting frustration and concern of Obama’s liberal supporters over the president’s response to the BP oil spill
George Will: a pompous defender of wealth and privilege
By David Walsh, 20 May 2010
Not to put too fine a point on it, Washington Post columnist George Will is a pompous windbag, one of the most obnoxious right-wing media figures in America, and that is saying a good deal.
Following exposure of military massacre in Iraq
The New York Times fingers whistleblower WikiLeaks
By David Walsh, 8 April 2010
The release of video footage Monday showing cold-blooded murder committed by US military forces on the streets of eastern Baghdad in July 2007 has evoked widespread outrage.
New York Times fashions “egalitarian” defense of Obama health plan
By Alex Lantier, 25 March 2010
As the press moves to dispel popular anxiety over Obama's health care plan, the New York Times' David Leonhardt has received the assignment of presenting Obama's health care plan as part of a struggle for social equality.
The New York Times and the Obama health care plan
By Kate Randall, 23 March 2010
The New York Times weighed in predictably on Monday with praise for passage of the Obama health care plan, capping a yearlong campaign by the newspaper to promote the legislation.
The Hurt Locker and the rehabilitation of the Iraq war: New York Times journalists weigh in
By David Walsh, 16 March 2010
On Sunday and Monday, the New York Times carried no fewer than three columns in which the supposed merits of The Hurt Locker, Kathryn Bigelow’s award-winning film about the Iraq war, were extolled.
New York Times history lesson on civilian control of the military: Why now?
By Tom Eley, 17 February 2010
The New York Times’ decision to run a column stressing military subordination to civilian authorities comes amid growing assertiveness and impunity of the military and intelligence establishments.
The “Tea Party” movement in the US: A right-wing media creation
By David Walsh, 9 February 2010
The “Tea Party” movement, which held a convention last weekend in Nashville, Tennessee, is largely a media concoction, aimed at shifting American politics even further to the right.
Liberalism and Wall Street
By Barry Grey, 16 January 2010
In an op-ed piece published January 10, New York Times columnist Frank Rich paints an accurate picture of the American political system, “where the banking lobby rules in both parties and the revolving door between finance and government never stops spinning.”
Diane Sawyer and ABC News pay tribute to remote control drone killings
By David Walsh, 14 January 2010
On Tuesday night’s ABC evening news, Diane Sawyer and two colleagues, David Muir and Bill Weir, devoted an extended segment to extolling the merits of the US Air Force’s Predator drones and their deadly attacks in Afghanistan.
The Tiger Woods episode: Money, the media, and the “path to redemption”
By David Walsh, 16 December 2009
The American media is generally full of rubbish, but more rubbish has been written and broadcast about Tiger Woods and his affairs than any other subject in some time.
The “Balloon Boy” hoax, celebrity culture, and the American media
By Hiram Lee, 22 October 2009
The “Balloon Boy” hoax has been the subject of wall-to-wall coverage by the major US news networks. Yet another episode in which an unhealthy celebrity culture and media sensationalism have revealed themselves.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman glorifies American militarism
By Patrick Martin, 13 October 2009
In the Sunday edition of the New York Times, the newspaper’s chief commentator on foreign affairs, Thomas L. Friedman, devotes his entire column to celebrating the role of the American military, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, as a humanitarian and liberating force.
New York Times: “everyone to blame” in Russia-Georgia war
By Niall Green, 6 October 2009
A New York Times editorial attempts to portray the recent report by EU investigators, which found the Georgian government legally responsible for initiating the conflict, as a vindication of the newspaper’s own biased coverage in August 2008.
The New York Times throws Roman Polanski to the wolves
By David Walsh and David North, 1 October 2009
The arrest of film director Roman Polanski in Switzerland and his threatened extradition to the US have stirred the baying hounds of ‘law and order’ into action. To these reactionary voices, we can now add the editorial board of the New York Times.
Demands to curtail war reporting after raid to free New York Times journalist
By Julie Hyland, 14 September 2009
Controversy over the SAS-led operation to free a New York Times journalist held captive in Afghanistan is being used to make demands that will curtail any objective and honest reporting from the war zones created by British and US imperialism.
Washington’s double standard: The elections in Iran and Afghanistan
By Patrick Martin, 28 August 2009
The Obama administration and the American media, after denouncing the presidential election in Iran as “rigged” and undemocratic (without any evidence), now uphold the legitimacy of the presidential election in Afghanistan, despite growing evidence of vote fraud.
The Massachusetts model
The New York Times and Obama’s health care counterrevolution
By Kate Randall, 14 August 2009
The New York Times has again come to the defense of Obama’s health care proposals with an editorial praising the Massachusetts health care system.
New York Times on Northern Alliance war crime
A cover-up of US massacre at Mazar-i-Sharif
By Barry Grey, 13 July 2009
The New York Times on July 11 published a lengthy front-page article recalling the murder of hundreds of captured Taliban fighters by the US-allied Northern Alliance at the end of November, 2001, during the final days of the American-led invasion that toppled the Taliban regime.
Tehran and Tegucigalpa: A tale of two capitals
By Barry Grey, 9 July 2009
The contrasting coverage of events in Iran and Honduras says a great deal about the character and role of the American media.
Washington Post offers its reporters to corporate sponsors
By David Walsh, 6 July 2009
The Washington Post, it was revealed last week, recently offered corporate sponsors—for a hefty fee—the opportunity to meet privately with key reporters, along with Congressional leaders and Obama administration officials.
Letters on the death of Michael Jackson
30 June 2009
A selection or recent letters sent to the World Socialist Web Site on “Michael Jackson’s death.”
Michael Jackson’s death
By David Walsh, 27 June 2009
One greets the death of singer Michael Jackson at the age of 50 with genuine sadness, but without extraordinary surprise. Given the entire set of circumstances, it was not clear how his saga might end happily. Individuals who enjoy immense celebrity and success in America so often pay a terrible price.
The propaganda war against Iran
By Bill Van Auken, 24 June 2009
The US media, including its supposedly “left” representatives, is continuing a concerted propaganda campaign against Iran over allegations that the June 12 presidential election was rigged.
The New York Times and the Iranian election
By Barry Grey, 15 June 2009
The response of the US media to the Iranian election says more about the state of democracy and the so-called “free press” in America than it does about the state of democratic rights in Iran.
New York Times on Guantánamo: A willing conduit for the military-intelligence apparatus
By Bill Van Auken, 9 June 2009
The New York Times’ latest admission of a “lapse” in journalistic standards—this time in regurgitating Pentagon propaganda about released Guantanamo detainees’ alleged “recidivism”—underscores the newspaper’s role as a willing conduit for the US military-intelligence apparatus.
Boston Globe shutdown averted for now
Unions signal readiness to accept massive concessions
By Kate Randall, 6 May 2009
With tentative deals reached with six of the Boston Globe’s unions, the New York Times Co. announced Monday that it was tentatively withdrawing its threat to shut down the newspaper.
Media promotes right-wing “tea parties”
By Tom Eley, 17 April 2009
Hundreds of anti-tax “tea parties” were held across the US on Wednesday, tax day. The events were heavily promoted by the media as a means of diverting public anger into reactionary channels.
The media defends executive bonuses
By Tom Eley, 21 March 2009
On Friday, a number of columns appeared in a US media defending the bonuses paid out to AIG executives.
New York Times columnist who demanded concessions from auto workers, “makes case” for AIG bonuses
By David Walsh, 18 March 2009
New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin argued Tuesday for paying American International Group (AIG) executives some $165 million in bonuses.
Television satirist Jon Stewart takes on Wall Street’s media mouthpieces
By David Walsh, 17 March 2009
Comic Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” has to be given credit for his recent exposure of CNBC as little more than a mouthpiece for Wall Street and its various corrupt and criminal or semi-criminal dealings.
The American media and the Lincoln bicentenary
By Tom Eley and David Walsh, 17 February 2009
The US media’s attempts to portray Obama as the heir of Lincoln’s legacy involve a grotesque historical and political falsification. While Lincoln will forever be associated with one of the great progressive causes of history—the ending of slavery through the Civil War—Obama bears an entirely reactionary relationship to today’s great political questions.
The New York Times and Gaza: Justifying genocide
31 December 2008
There is little to distinguish the “newspaper of record’s” version of events from the mendacious account being peddled by the American media in general: the Palestinians are the aggressors and Israel the victim. Never mind the grim and unequal equation of the conflict: roughly 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli.
A damning admission on the Georgian war
8 November 2008
The New York Times on Friday carried a front-page article citing a report by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, whose monitors were in Georgia when the fighting broke out, which demolishes the official US account of the August 2008 Russian-Georgian war, according to which the war was an act of Russian aggression.
The New York Times’ endorsement of Obama
25 October 2008
The lineup of major newspapers behind Obama culminated in Friday’s endorsement by the New York Times, the leading US newspaper and the principal voice of the liberal wing of the American political establishment.
The Washington Post endorses Obama
By Alex Lantier, 18 October 2008
The Washington Post endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama yesterday. Such an endorsement—by the second-most influential liberal paper, headquartered in the nation's capital, and which obtained widespread support for uncovering the Nixon administration's role in the Watergate affair—carries immense weight in the US political establishment.
New York Times demands escalation of Afghanistan war
By David Walsh, 16 October 2008
In an editorial October 15 entitled “Downward Spiral,” the New York Times calls for the next administration to carry out “a swift and serious buildup of troops” in Afghanistan.
Why is American liberalism bankrupt? A history lesson for New York Times columnist Bob Herbert
By Tom Eley, 19 September 2008
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert’s September 9 column “Hold Your Heads Up” is a lamentation of US liberalism’s cowardice.
New York Times’ Roger Cohen on Georgian crisis: A case of deliberate deception
By Alex Lantier, 4 September 2008
Since shortly after the August 7 attack by Georgian forces on South Ossetia triggered large-scale fighting between Georgia and Russia, major US media outlets have overwhelmingly presented the crisis as a simple case of Russian “aggression.”
Hillary Clinton on Today:
What was left unsaid
27 January 1998
Hillary Clinton's appearance on Tuesday morning's Today show was the most explicit reference so far by a Clinton defender to the political forces which are seeking to undermine or oust the administration. Mrs. Clinton described the scandal-mongering over her husband's relations with Monica Lewinsky as "an effort to undo the results of the last two elections." She continued, "The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband.... I'm very concerned about the tactics that are being used and the kind of intense political agenda at work here." Referring to independent counsel Kenneth Starr, she added, "We get a politically motivated prosecutor who is allied with the right-wing opponents of my husband.... It is just a very unfortunate turn of events that we are using the criminal justice system to try to achieve political ends in this country." Even more important than these statements, however, is what Mrs. Clinton left unsaid. Nowhere did she refer to the substance of the "intense political agenda" which underlies the attack on the Clinton administration from the extreme right wing. Nowhere did she spell out the "political ends"--other than the removal of Bill Clinton--which are at issue. Nowhere did she identify any of these "right-wing opponents." On the face of it, this is an astonishing omission. The wife of the president of the United States decries a right-wing conspiracy of enormous proportions, one which surely poses a threat to the viability of democratic processes in America. Yet she refuses to discuss the matter any further. Instead, after raising the issue of political agendas, Mrs. Clinton was compelled to fall back on purely personal motives, concluding, "Now do I wish we didn't live in a time where people were so malicious and evil-minded? Of course." It is not, however, a question merely of subjective hatred, but of powerful and objective social forces which are finding their reflection in this degrading political scandal. The forces seeking Clinton's ouster want to press ahead more systematically and ferociously with the destruction of social programs, the elimination of all taxation on wealth, and the unrestrained use of American military power around the world. Such policies inevitably take on the character of a conspiracy against democratic rights, because they are deeply anti-popular and opposed by the vast majority of the American people. Mrs. Clinton had no choice but to flee this subject after raising it, because the Clinton administration has itself implemented much of the right-wing agenda, from elimination of welfare, to persecuting immigrants, to military confrontation with Iraq. Clinton's political posture from the time he entered the White House--and well before--has been to accommodate himself to the right-wing policies demanded by big business, while sugar-coating them with liberal rhetoric and tears of sympathy. For all the viciousness of the infighting, the conflict between Clinton and his right-wing opponents is a struggle within the ruling class over the political direction of the state. Even if it costs them the White House, the Clintons dare not raise issues which would begin to lift the veil on the real social and political structure of America and could arouse the masses of working people to intervene in the crisis as an independent force fighting for its own interests.
Follow the WSWS