Why Did Major Media Outlets Silently Withdraw Support for President Biden's Failed Afghanistan Exit Strategy?
Recent events have cast a long shadow over the perceived credibility and impartiality of major media outlets such as CNN, CNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. These outlets have seemingly pulled away from covering President Biden's catastrophic Afghanistan exit strategy, leaving many to question whether the coverage represented a genuine shift or merely a strategic withdrawal.
Are We Witnessing a Strategic Retreat?
Some argue that the media's disinterest in thoroughly reporting on the aftermath of the failed Afghanistan exit is a calculated move. The phrase “because they are rats deserting a sinking ship” captures the essence of this dynamic. Despite the clear failure and the evident mismanagement, these media giants maintain a veneer of objectivity while subtly distancing themselves from the controversy. However, maintaining credibility can be challenging when the very narratives they report on are indefensible.
For some, this behavior is more than just a strategic move; it is symptomatic of deeper political entanglements. These media organizations are often seen as eager lapdogs of the Democratic Party, but maintaining a semblance of impartiality is crucial when dealing with sensitive or controversial issues. The media’s withdrawal from providing comprehensive coverage highlights a worrying trend of reporting based on political affiliations rather than factual accountability.
The Silent Enemy of Objective Journalism
CNN, along with other so-called BlameStreamMedia, is frequently criticized for its biased coverage. The term “BlameStreamMedia” itself suggests a reliance on blaming one party over another without offering a balanced perspective. This bias has led to a situation where comprehensive reports on the Americans left behind and the mistreatment of Afghans by the Taliban are notably absent from major news outlets.
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s quote, “In politics nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way,” sheds light on the perceived intention behind these media strategies. The implication is that the catastrophic failure of the Afghanistan exit strategy was a calculated move rather than an unforeseen consequence. This analysis suggests that the media's current stance is part of a larger, deliberate strategy to manage public perception and political narratives.
The Intersection of Media and Global Elite Influence
The media's withdrawal from covering the aftermath of this fiasco can also be traced back to their alignment with global elite interests, particularly those represented by the World Economic Forum (WEF). Powerful forces, such as the WEF, operate through a network of 1500 or so corporations that partner with governments worldwide. The ideology of the WEF is fundamentally one of global corporatism, a form of fascism that seeks dominance through economic and political means.
The analogy used in the original text is apt: the media can cover up smaller transgressions but become less effective when faced with a more glaring and undeniable mismanagement. The current state of affairs with President Biden can be seen as an example of this dynamic. Just as a politician in a compromising position might attempt to cover up a minor issue, a major failure such as the Afghanistan exit strategy cannot be easily excused or hidden from public scrutiny.
Conclusion
The media's decision to withdraw from covering the aftermath of the failed Afghanistan exit strategy suggests a complex interplay of political, economic, and ideological factors. While some may argue that this is a strategic withdrawal to maintain impartiality, the behavior of major media outlets is frequently scrutinized for its biases. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for maintaining a well-informed public and for holding those in power accountable to the highest standards of transparency and honesty in governance.