"A big thing I see driving the Afghanistan conversation that no one is talking about is something I've seen quite often in 40 years in journalism: People's personal relationships -- a.k.a., access journalism -- matters more than looking at the big picture. There's a large foreign policy community -- especiall…
"A big thing I see driving the Afghanistan conversation that no one is talking about is something I've seen quite often in 40 years in journalism: People's personal relationships -- a.k.a., access journalism -- matters more than looking at the big picture. There's a large foreign policy community -- especially journalists at places like NYT or WP who worship "objectivity" 99% of the time -- for whom Afghanistan is personal. They have human ties there, with no greater priority -- human nature, understandable -- than keeping their friends alive. It's like when you have a family member in the hospital -- you're suddenly not on a soapbox about the outrageous cost of U.S. healthcare. These folks could never support leaving Afghanistan to the inevitable, and I understand why. Thus it's on the rest of us without personal ties to point out the obvious bigger picture: That a government that collapses in days without America propping them up wasn't worth $2.2 trillion and thousands of U.S. lives."
Another point to take note of is how quick the mainstream media are to criticize a Democratic administration. It should blow a huge hole in the widespread belief on the right that "the media" are simply an arm of the Democratic Party. That narrative has always been wildly exaggerated. And this story should be all the proof anyone needs.
Your assumptions about people in the media are wildly off the mark. And it's a mistake to lump them all together into the dumbest term in the English language "the media". Every major news org ALWAYS gets input from all of the relevant perspectives. I heard an interview with David Patreus on NPR, he was very critical of the decision to pull out. And you get Trump defenders, and Biden defenders and so on. If you think they are only about helping Dems win elections you are simply wrong. For reporters, their motivation is to write big important stories that impress their bosses and colleagues because they want to have a great career. They want to be the next Woodward and Bernstein. Publishers are interested in satisfying shareholders. Editors are about impressing their bosses and colleagues and pleasing the publisher. The narrative you have in your head about "the media" is overly simplistic and just wrong. It's like the home team fans complaining that the refs have it in for their team.
I'm sure many of them do boast of being liberal. But what definition of liberal are they using? In a true sense being liberal means trying to be open-minded enough to see any situation from the point of view of others. (Not that anyone can ever do this perfectly.) Conservatives tend to think that their way of seeing things is the way the world really is, and everyone else is just wrong. I think this is why journalists tend to be liberals. And I still maintain that most of the people in "the media" are thinking first and foremost about their careers; not their political agenda.
Will Bunch has a good point:
"A big thing I see driving the Afghanistan conversation that no one is talking about is something I've seen quite often in 40 years in journalism: People's personal relationships -- a.k.a., access journalism -- matters more than looking at the big picture. There's a large foreign policy community -- especially journalists at places like NYT or WP who worship "objectivity" 99% of the time -- for whom Afghanistan is personal. They have human ties there, with no greater priority -- human nature, understandable -- than keeping their friends alive. It's like when you have a family member in the hospital -- you're suddenly not on a soapbox about the outrageous cost of U.S. healthcare. These folks could never support leaving Afghanistan to the inevitable, and I understand why. Thus it's on the rest of us without personal ties to point out the obvious bigger picture: That a government that collapses in days without America propping them up wasn't worth $2.2 trillion and thousands of U.S. lives."
Another point to take note of is how quick the mainstream media are to criticize a Democratic administration. It should blow a huge hole in the widespread belief on the right that "the media" are simply an arm of the Democratic Party. That narrative has always been wildly exaggerated. And this story should be all the proof anyone needs.
"We media aren't just shameless Democratic Party hacks! See how often we criticize Democrats FROM THE LEFT?!?"
"Another point to take note of is how quick the mainstream media are to criticize a Democratic administration."
Now that's funny. At some point there simply ain't enough lipstick to make the dumbest partisan want to kiss that pig.
Your assumptions about people in the media are wildly off the mark. And it's a mistake to lump them all together into the dumbest term in the English language "the media". Every major news org ALWAYS gets input from all of the relevant perspectives. I heard an interview with David Patreus on NPR, he was very critical of the decision to pull out. And you get Trump defenders, and Biden defenders and so on. If you think they are only about helping Dems win elections you are simply wrong. For reporters, their motivation is to write big important stories that impress their bosses and colleagues because they want to have a great career. They want to be the next Woodward and Bernstein. Publishers are interested in satisfying shareholders. Editors are about impressing their bosses and colleagues and pleasing the publisher. The narrative you have in your head about "the media" is overly simplistic and just wrong. It's like the home team fans complaining that the refs have it in for their team.
I'm sure many of them do boast of being liberal. But what definition of liberal are they using? In a true sense being liberal means trying to be open-minded enough to see any situation from the point of view of others. (Not that anyone can ever do this perfectly.) Conservatives tend to think that their way of seeing things is the way the world really is, and everyone else is just wrong. I think this is why journalists tend to be liberals. And I still maintain that most of the people in "the media" are thinking first and foremost about their careers; not their political agenda.