This rhetoric left some media personalities wanting ― or at least wondering why he didn’t provide ― more aggressive rhetoric.
NBC host Chuck Todd thought Biden should have made it into a war speech, wondering why he didn’t spend a lot more time talking about the European crisis – despite all the economic and other problems facing America. has to face at home. (For the record, Biden led his remarks with Ukraine and spent about 12 minutes on the subject in a speech that lasted just over an hour.)
Todd said he thinks Biden would “spend a little more time explaining why this is our fight, like you said, ‘good versus evil,’ explaining a little more and a little history defense of Europe, and why we are in this position.
“Unfortunately, we see so many mistakes that we always see in the media during wars,” said Stephen Miles, president of Win Without War, a network of activists and organizations. “Focusing on the leaders who direct the violence rather than those who suffer from it, the false choices between doing nothing and the United States going to war, and focusing more on troop movements and airstrikes than on the causes of conflict and how we could build lasting peace. We desperately need the media to do better.
There has also been a lot of racism in media coverage of Ukraine, with a – still very white – media industry expressing more sympathy for what Ukrainians are going through because they look like them.
“What’s fascinating is watching them, the way they’re dressed,” said Al-Jazeera English presenter Peter Dobbie. “They are prosperous middle-class people. These are obviously not refugees trying to flee the Middle East…or North Africa. They look like any European family that you would live next door.
“It’s not a place ― with all due respect ― like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict rage for decades. This is relatively civilizedrelatively European…a city where you wouldn’t expect that,” CBS foreign correspondent Charlie D’Agata said in another example of media bias.
The Association of Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists recently issued a statement condemning the “orientalist and racist implications that any population or country is “uncivilized” or bears economic factors that make it worthy of conflict. »
Despite some of these discouraging trends on the part of some members of the media, the environment is very different from what it was in 2003. It is much more diffuse and the commentary disturbing – whether it is those who make light on the involvement of American troops in a wider conflict or racist characterizations ― were quickly denounced on social networks.
On Tuesday morning, former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul – who is a frequent fixture on MSNBC – played a part of good versus evil, tweeting that there are no more ‘innocent’ or ‘neutral’ Russians. now.
“Everyone must make a choice – support or oppose this war,” McFaul wrote. “The only way to end this war is for hundreds of thousands, not thousands, to protest this senseless war. Putin can’t stop you all!
In other words, you are either with us or against us.
McFaul later deleted this tweet after receiving heavy criticism.
Without sending troops to Ukraine, the international community must rely on economic aid and sanctions. The United States and other European countries have provided significant military and financial aid to Ukraine while imposing crippling sanctions on the Russian economy.
There appears to be broad support for Biden’s policies on Ukraine, including economic sanctions on Russia and Putin, aid to Ukraine and troop assistance to NATO allies. But 82% of respondents in a recent CBS News/YouGov poll said they were at least somewhat concerned about the crisis in Ukraine becoming a wider war in Europe, and 71% said they weren’t. did not want the United States to send troops to fight Russia.