Is the media hyping up international conflicts to hurt Obama and promote the neo-con agenda?

[Yavin4]

With the war in Gaza, ISIS in Iraq, the conflict in the Ukraine, and Iran, the media is promoting the narrative that the world is in the worst turmoil that it's ever been, and the reason for this is that America has become isolationist since the Iraq war and is not fulfilling its role as the world's super power.

This narrative has a two-fold purpose: (1) damages Obama politically and sets up a big Republican mid-term win in November and (2) lays the ground work for the return of the neo-con agenda of American military intervention overseas into these conflict zones.

American corporate media is adroit at getting policy into action even when the American people don't support it.

[jberryhill]

1. The current conflicts are pretty dramatic

But not ones in which one is likely to drum up support for American military intervention, IMHO.

[el_bryanto]

2. While there are elements of that - Benghazi, for example - I think that things really are in turmoil

just now.

But I don't think the media is in the tank for Republicans either - with some notable exceptions. I think they are in the tank for Wall Street, and Wall Street is not of one mind when it comes to our foreign policy - some elements would like to see more militaristic responses, but others probably would prefer things to keep on a smooth keel.

Bryant

[TwilightGardener]

3. The myth they're pushing is that the US is "disengaged"--which is totally false.

The only place we really ever left is Iraq. Militarily, we're in even more countries now, if you count African countries and our new NATO deployments to places like Latvia and Poland. But the neocons want the lesson to be: World erupts in violence and terror when the US isn't fighting two or more wars at once. Two perpetual wars is the minimum, now--and god help us if we have to defend Japan or Korea. I should add: it never used to be the expectation that the US controlled the world and everyone in it, and was responsible for all conflicts that occurred--until THIS President. Other Presidents were applauded for how they handled things that happened on their watch (See: Bush on 9/11), Obama gets blame for things happening at all. It's total bullshit.

[maced666]

4. A little, yea.

Heighten over say when little bush was in.... not enough for a 'smoking gun' but Obama certainly gets more grief.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. No. Take a look at other countries' media before you come up with paranoid theories

You may be used to the world revolving around the USA, but when news from outside finally penetrates the shell of the American media, you shouldn't leap to conclusions that it's still All About You, just as some half-assed conspiracy theory now.

[Yavin4]

6. Excuse me, I do.

Nothing in my post conveys your perception of my post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. It starts from your title, and gets worse

Or are you claiming the entire world's media is out to get Obama?



This belong in Creative Speculation.