Blog #7: The progressive era

Looking at the websites, Antiwar.com  and The American Conservative  , it's scary to see how these platforms never are seen in mainstream media coverage. These sites share critiques of U.S. military interventions and foreign policy that are different from the stories on major news outlets. This could be for many reasons. 

One of those reasons being media consolidation. Since major news outlets are owned and operated by large corporations that may have financial relationships with defense contractors or other military industries. These entanglements create conflicts of


interest when covering military interventions,  discouraging content that might challenge these relationships or threaten revenue streams.

Mainstream journalists covering national security and government policies depend heavily on access to government officials and military sources. Depending one them, creates a dilemma that challenges the narratives about military operations. Posting anti-war content can damage their career. This dynamic incentivizes reporters to work within parameters of critique rather than questioning policies.

Criticizing military action can also be seen as unpatriotic, creating social pressure against antiwar perspective. This creates both potential backlash and self-censorship among journalist and media outlets. Those who question risk being labeled as unpatriotic and unsupportive of troops.

War coverage can also make news outlets more money and so criticizing this and turning down war will not make them any money. When certain types of wars are on tv and social media, veiwing and advertising goes up, which makes them more profitable. This creates a financial incentive to prioritize coverage that aligns with rather than challenges military actions.

The First Amendment was designed to protect exactly these perspectives - not just the comfortable or convenient ones. When Eugene Debs was imprisoned for an antiwar speech during WWI, the government was openly silencing dissent. Today, no one goes to jail for opposing military action, but powerful forces still work to keep certain viewpoints at the margins of our national conversation.

We see this in how quickly antiwar voices were sidelined after 9/11, labeled as unpatriotic or naive. We see it when media coverage of conflicts focuses overwhelmingly on strategy and technology rather than human costs or underlying policy questions. We see it when thoughtful critics must build their own platforms because mainstream doors remain closed to them.

This matters to all of us because without hearing these perspectives, we can't make truly informed decisions as citizens. We need to hear the veterans, the peace activists, the foreign policy experts with alternative viewpoints - not just those who reinforce existing power structures. That's what makes the First Amendment not just a legal protection, but a living value that shapes what kind of society we want to be.