A conservative media watchdog says mainstream television networks have shown a blatant double standard when it comes to the coverage of two major incursions under different presidents.
When President George W. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, many in the media chastised him, even though he had prior congressional approval to authorize force based on reports that Saddam Hussein possessed “weapons of mass destruction.”
However, when President Barack Obama recently ordered air strikes on Libya without congressional approval, the same media failed to challenge him, even reporting it was the right thing to do. Since the operations began last week, the consensus appears to be that Libya does not pose any national security risks for the U.S.
Rich Noyes, director of research at the Media Research Center, says about the Libya situation: “When you listen to liberal reporters, they seem more excited about the fact that the United States is spending its treasure and risking the blood of its sons in something that has no national security implications for United States — and yet this seems to be where liberals get most excited. They don’t like it when we actually do have a security interest.”
Noyes says even if the decision is based on purely humanitarian concerns, not U.S. security interests, there is still a double standard.
Read More at One News Now by Chad Groening, OneNewsNow
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Yep Barry is getting a pass for a war he started against a person that was a Saddam lite, and they will never really report fairly about Barry the user of the one letter word "I" more than any other person "I" have seen.
Barry "Birth Certificate"
"When President George W. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, many in the media chastised him"
What does "many" mean in this case? Actually it was damn few, and various media–including the New York Times–ended up apologizing for being so pro-war at the beginning and for taking the Bush Administration claims as fact. And once "embedded" journalists go to go along, we saw almost nothing but cheerleading for the first few months of the war.
"the media lambasted Bush when no WMDs were found in Iraq, while WMDs are not even an issue in Libya."
The difference, of course, is that the reason got Congressional approval in the first place was because Bushies lied about knowing there were WMDs. Remember Colin Powell's address to the UN?
I agree that the media haven't been critical enough of Obama's war, but it's hardly a double standard–just par for the course. The media (and public) almost always get behind a war at the beginning, whether that "war" is in Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Grenada, Nicaragua or LIbya.
James i think you meant to say got to go along & we saw?
Ask yourself: are those media that fail to challenge Obama controlled by George Soros? George will
never fail to protect his boy.
Southern Kurds, group after group are joining HPG forces. PKK is getting stronger both politically and militarily.
So far turks have not advanced, they're only on the uninhabited borderline. Kurds are waiting for them.