Thus, newspapers became the censor of the left

Thus, newspapers became the censor of the left

Let’s do a thought experiment. If there is in the White House Donald Trump instead of Joe BidenNow how will the media report the war in Ukraine? The former president believed that in his presence in power, Russian President Vladimir Putin He did not have the courage to attack, as he declared at the beginning of the conflict. But suppose all things being equal (the war is going on) there was Trump and not Biden, what are we going to see on TV today? What do we read in the newspapers? Let’s risk an answer, based on past experiences: In January 2020, when a US air strike killed the Iranian general Qassem SoleimaniThe media reacted with a unanimous chorus of anxiety and terror to a possible “world war”, the responsibility of which was attributed to the US president and his “volatile” personality. The same story was actually seen in September 2017, in the North Korean missile crisis. Every statement of the then Republican president against the “rocket man” dictator Kim Jong-unIt was seen as a provocative provocation of world war.

If the press, American and Italian as well, has maintained the same sensitivity and vulnerability as it was at the time, today every declaration by Biden against Putin (starting with his definition of a “murderer” in an interview issued months before the start of the war) will be read as a start” World War III”. So the experience is easy: in an alternate world where Trump was in the White House, the press today would all be pacifist, seeking US responsibility for the origin of the conflict, would consider sending weapons to Ukraine very provocatively, and fill the news. Reports and policy programs for interviews with experts on the dangers of nuclear war.

See also  Finnish unions are waging war against government cuts

On the other hand, that’s what we’ve seen in the past 20 years. The only exception wasSeptember 11An attack on America so great and so amazing that it made everyone agree. But only six months later, with the intervention in Afghanistan and above all with the onset of the crisis in Iraq in 2002, the accusation campaign against the United States began when the president was a Republican. George W. Bush. In 2003, with the outbreak of the war in Iraq, the 9/11 narrative about the threat of terrorism magically vanished, leaving room for the more popular anti-imperialist war. All included: even Corriere della Sera, directed by Ferruccio de Bortoli, shattered a centuries-old interventionist and pro-Western tradition that began in World War I, to take an unprecedentedly pacifist stance. Over the next eight years, every death in Iraq was attributed to Bush. It was assumed that the cause of the conflict was weapons of mass destruction that were never found, forgetting the other two reasons: the hostility of the regime. Saddam Hussein (an outspoken sponsor of terrorism, especially against Israel) and his failure to comply with the terms of the 1991 armistice. Bush’s bad faith about weapons of mass destruction was taken for granted, even if, at the time, almost all Western intelligence services were not “proven” to exist.

The same machine did not start wars Bill Clinton. There were peaceful demonstrations, on the occasion of NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, against Serbia in 1999. But marginal: Michel Santoro Organizing live broadcasts from Belgrade Bridge and opposition to the Northern League (then outside of both poles) was not even remotely comparable to the pacifist chorus that would be seen just four years later against intervention in Iraq. However, both disputes were highly problematic in terms of international law, given that in both cases there was no consensus at the United Nations. The pacifist machine no longer moved after Bush left the scene. Not even in the eight months of the air war in Libya, where even the mission of the no-fly zone has tacitly shifted to regime change. But there was Obama in the White House.

See also  What is the 'smog' in London that left victims suffocating?

Let’s try a more difficult thought experiment. If only there had been Trump in the White House instead of Biden, it was said vaccination campaign? Yes, because the vaccine production and distribution plan, turn speed, bears the signature of Trump, not his Democratic successor, which he inherited. Here it is difficult to speculate because precedents do not exist. But the media, which accused Trump of being unscientific and denial, never explained why the United States had come up with a vaccine, before other countries. And that there is already a vaccination campaign ready, above all, even before the rest of the world. It is strange, then, that the news of the first vaccine, that Pfizerto the days after the election, when Trump had already lost.

Are we perhaps implying that the media is biased, starting with the Americans and ending with the Italians?

She is a journalist in Rai Giovanna Pottery, who inadvertently denounced this fact, following the election of Donald Trump, in 2016: “What will happen to us journalists? We have never seen such a compact and united press against a candidate as in this election.. What will happen now that the press no longer has power? and weight in American society?”. It happened, as the following story shows, that the press remained united and pressed, in the United States and Europe. Not in the role of democracy observer, but Democratic Party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *