Veteran NBC/MSNBC Contributor Leaving Network Over Bias Against Trump and For Never Ending War
Peter D'Abrosca | Tuesday, January 8, 2019 -- 4:14 PM EST
***Uploaded by CitizensDawn and Last updated on Tuesday, January 8, 2019 -- 4:17 PM EST***
Roses:
0
Views:
66
Featured:
0
Rating:
0

Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton first made the term "fake news" popular when trying to undermine the credibility of any criticism by smaller, independent outlets of the mainstream, corporate News publications that had become their Lap Dogs. As the MSM talking heads double down on their Trump Derangement Syndrome, the term Fake News has come full circle and is finally being exposed.

***Article first published by 'Big Leasgue Politics' on Jan. 3, 2019***

A longtime NBC and MSNBC journalist and contributor is leaving the networks over their increasing loyalty to elite military industrial complex puppet-masters, according to a scathing letter he sent to multiple news outlets.

William Arkin, a 30-year veteran of the network, blasted its coverage and analysis of the disastrous foreign policy of the past two decades, accusing the cable giants of playing partisan politics and switching their positions on whether the United States should be involved in unending, un-winnable wars in the Middle East based on their loyalty Democratic Party elite.

This hackery has been painfully apparent over the past two weeks, when the same nets who were noticeably anti-war during the days of President George W. Bush, then noticeably silent when President Barack H. Obama escalated those wars, were outraged when President Donald J. Trump decided to pull troops from Syria and Afghanistan.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who wrote an entire book on the ills of endless war, is the perfect example. She bashed Trump for yanking the troops out of that endless quagmire, calling his policy “reckless.”

Arkin, apparently, is finished with cable news and its beholden relationship to the national security state. He wrote:

William Arkin

My expertise, though seeming to be all the more central to the challenges and dangers we face, also seems to be less valued at the moment. And I find myself completely out of synch with the network, being neither a day-to-day reporter nor interested in the Trump circus….

To me there is also a larger problem: though they produce nothing that resembles actual safety and security, the national security leaders and generals we have are allowed to do their thing unmolested. Despite being at “war,” no great wartime leaders or visionaries are emerging. There is not a soul in Washington who can say that they have won or stopped any conflict. And though there might be the beloved perfumed princes in the form of the Petraeus’ and Wes Clarks’, or the so-called warrior monks like Mattis and McMaster, we’ve had more than a generation of national security leaders who sadly and fraudulently have done little of consequence. And yet we (and others) embrace them, even the highly partisan formers who masquerade as “analysts”. We do so ignoring the empirical truth of what they have wrought: There is not one county in the Middle East that is safer today than it was 18 years ago. Indeed the world becomes ever more polarized and dangerous….

Windrem again convinced me to return to NBC to join the new investigative unit in the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign. I thought that the mission was to break through the machine of perpetual war acceptance and conventional wisdom to challenge Hillary Clinton’s hawkishness. It was also an interesting moment at NBC because everyone was looking over their shoulder at Vice and other upstarts creeping up on the mainstream. But then Trump got elected and Investigations got sucked into the tweeting vortex, increasingly lost in a directionless adrenaline rush, the national security and political version of leading the broadcast with every snow storm. And I would assert that in many ways NBC just began emulating the national security state itself – busy and profitable. No wars won but the ball is kept in play.

I’d argue that under Trump, the national security establishment not only hasn’t missed a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength. Now it is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism. I’d also argue, ever so gingerly, that NBC has become somewhat lost in its own verve, proxies of boring moderation and conventional wisdom, defender of the government against Trump, cheerleader for open and subtle threat mongering, in love with procedure and protocol over all else (including results). I accept that there’s a lot to report here, but I’m more worried about how much we are missing. Hence my desire to take a step back and think why so little changes with regard to America’s wars. ….

In our day-to-day whirlwind and hostage status as prisoners of Donald Trump, I think – like everyone else does – that we miss so much. People who don’t understand the medium, or the pressures, loudly opine that it’s corporate control or even worse, that it’s partisan. Sometimes I quip in response to friends on the outside (and to government sources) that if they mean by the word partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they are right.

For me I realized how out of step I was when I looked at Trump’s various bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations with Russia, to denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why we are fighting in Africa, even in his attacks on the intelligence community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I’m alarmed at how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really? We shouldn’t get out Syria? We shouldn’t go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for the Cold War? And don’t even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?

This is the second serious blow to the mainstream press from one of its own in as many days. Wednesday, Jill Abramson, formerly of the New York Times, blasted the paper as “unmistakably anti-Trump.”

Follow Peter D’Abrosca on Twitter: @pdabrosca
Like Peter D’Abrosca on Facebook: facebook.com/peterdabrosca

Comments: 0
*** By using and viewing the comments, you acknowledge that the views expressed herein do not necessarilly express the views of Citizens' Dawn and that Citizens' Dawn is not responsible for any content that is linked to outside of Citizens' Dawn's domain, which may be included within each citizen's comments.
Log in to leave a comment!
CD Featured Video:
Citizens' Dawn's Sponsors:
CD Featured Video:
CD Featured Video: