From my research on this topic, I saw that going back to World War One, the United States worked hard to suppress any dissent against the official narrative of going to war. As I learned from Smithsonian Magazine, “ Meanwhile, President Woodrow Wilson’s Democratic administration launched an intense propaganda effort to bolster support for the war, along with one of the most aggressive campaigns of political repression in U.S. history. Empowered by the Espionage Act, passed by Congress in June 1917, the government blocked the mailing of anti-war newspapers and arrested 2,000 protesters on charges of inspiring resistance to military recruitment. States passed sedition laws and arrested dissenters. The American Defense Society, a right-wing vigilante group, pulled anti-war speakers off soapboxes in New York City.” (Trickey, When America's most prominent socialist was jailed for speaking out against World War I 2018.) This showed me that from a long time ago, there was very little tolerance for opposition to war. The ways that those who supported U.S. involvement in World War One went about achieving their objectives of silencing dissent ranged from the government actually arresting dissidents to more informal methods of simply preventing them from speaking. This is not different from what happens in current times. From reading websites like Antiwar, I saw that those who oppose wars are rarely given a platform in mainstream media and so I was unfamiliar with many of the writers.
I believe that the lack of a platform for people who align with the Antiwar movement is not an accident. It seems as though once the narrative of going to war is decided, the mainstream media goes about preventing opposition from voicing their opinions. The way that this is done is simple. They do not give them spots on the most popular news shows or newspapers. Instead, they have to write in much lesser known publications that are unlikely to attract a lot of attention or make a serious impact.
When a country goes to war, they look to maintain a lot of support from the public. They want people to stand with the government and military in order to be united against an enemy. When the news media dissents from this, they can lead to a loss of support for the war. An example of this is with the Vietnam War, when Walter Cronkite did a broadcast in Vietnam. “ The February 1968 assessment by Walter Cronkite, the anchor of the CBS Evening News (known as “the most trusted man in America”), that the conflict was “mired in stalemate” was seen by many as the signal of a sea change in reporting about Vietnam, and it is said to have inspired Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson to state, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.”.” (The Vietnam War and the Media 2023. Encyclopedia Britannica.) This shows that when the public has seen the news reporting negatively on a conflict, they may start to oppose the conflict. Therefore, countries can be concerned about allowing reporting from the Antiwar movement to be allowed in the mainstream media.
A reason that people would have to seek out these opinions in other publications is because the mainstream news sources do not want to publish Antiwar opinions. They may prefer to stay with the narrative that other news sources are presenting that is not in support of the Antiwar movement.
Overall, I have not noticed the Antiwar movement to be shown a lot in mainstream news sources. There has been a lot of opposition to dissent from wars historically, which can go back to World War One.
Sources
Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (2023, April 24). The Vietnam War and the Media. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Vietnam-War-and-the-media-2051426
Trickey, E. (2018, June 15). When America’s most prominent socialist was jailed for speaking out against World War I. Smithsonian.com. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fiery-socialist-challenged-nations-role-wwi-180969386/
No comments:
Post a Comment