U.S. Media Discovers War Obsession, Misses Who Profits
The mainstream media's sudden introspection on 'war obsession' is rich, especially when it's limited to conflicts that don't involve a certain major U.S. ally. The Hill 's recent piece commending JD Vance for calling out the 'bonkers' political focus on Ukraine war is a fascinating window into selective outrage. It conveniently omits the equally 'bonkers' bipartisan consensus on funneling billions
to other conflicts, often driven by the very lobbying groups funding these same politicians. Where's the op-ed questioning the 'bonkers' obsession with unconditional aid to Israel, for instance? Or the silence when Speaker Johnson — who just days ago called aid to Ukraine 'existential' — then pushes for billions more to Israel? It's almost as if the 'obsession' is only problematic when it doesn't
align with the broader foreign policy establishment's interests. The actual bonkers part isn't the aid itself, but the media's selective critique of it. One might wonder if the concern for 'horrific' war (as the op-ed puts it) extends beyond Ukraine's borders, or if some horrors are simply more newsworthy than others.