This week, a demented President Biden announced his intention to end the war in Afghanistan, to great media fanfare. You may remember, way back in 2019 and 2020, President Trump said the same thing. There was of course, a difference in coverage.
When Trump said we were leaving CNN quoted the NATO Secretary General with a “stark warning” about how “dangerous” the move would be.
But Biden’s decision? Well, on that one, we just get to hear from his people.
Mainstream Media outlets can frame the narrative they want by focusing on people who support or oppose a certain policy. It’s misleading, but also a calling card of the MSM:
The New York Times told us that Trump’s decision was a capitulation to the Taliban where we would get nothing in return – as if blood not shed and treasure not spent means nothing.
But Biden’s drooling, brain dead call? Well, for some reason these concerns seem to have evaporated.
For Trump, we hear about the “fears” of Afghan officials, but from the NYTs Biden, on the other hand, gets a sympathetic write up despite being the second most powerful man in the country during the height of US forces. Just incredible memoryholing here.
These tweets are mere months apart from MSNBC. Stunningly, they found people to say the exact opposite things about the decision to pull out.
Its interesting that Rachel Maddow no longer seem to see the invisible hand of Russia calling the shots now that it is Biden pulling troops out of Afghanistan. Instead, it’s a great thing.
The incompetent hacks at NPR don’t even seem to be trying anymore. Were no military leaders worried when Biden made the decision to do the same thing?
Hacks at PBS–Trump’s decisions were instantly refracted through the lens of those who oppose him. For Biden, we just hear from him directly on the benefits of his plans.
When it was Trump making the decisions, ABC rushed to tell us about how the decision would “undermine his administration’s agreement with the Taliban.” It didn’t. And now that Biden is calling the shots, we’ve got nothing but pomp, circumstance and PR pull quotes.
This situation has given us one of the clearest examples of framing for materially similar actions by different presidents. Would anyone look at these side by sides and think they were impartial and balanced? The narrative shift is striking even though the goal of each policy is the same. It isn’t sustainable to have information twisted and crammed into narratives this way.
So it goes.