THE PART WESTERN PRESS & MEDIA PLAY IN FOMENTING WAR

The words "Bring 'em on" by George W. Bush became infamous for their inference that the USA welcomed war. His style of leadership was abrasive and aggressive while most observers doubted that any intellectual capacity or ability to reflect reality lay behind his words. What was obvious however was that he had by one means or another reached a pinnacle of power in the West that he was blatantly using to foment war.

At the time Bush was speaking he was almost unanimously backed by western press and media, in fact the lust to attack "America's enemies" was palpable across all western and much of its population. The level of support seen then among western populations subsided to a great degree after the serial disasters of America's subsequent wars, especially when the lies used to gain support for them were revealed.

You might think this welcome cynicism brought about by successive disastrous wars initiated by the West in recent decades which so altered public opinion about them might have had a salutary lesson for western press and media also. But this reflection of reality in the West's news outlets was notable by its absence. In fact the jingoistic quality of its coverage has only increased in recent times.

Both the Guardian newspaper and the BBC have swung readily to the side of the neoconservative viewpoint that many of us expected to be discredited after America's exposure as a deceiving warmonger/war criminal state via Julian Assange's ‘Wikileaks’ site and other keen-eyed observers. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have likewise found no issue with further U.S. aggression and have regularly beat the war drums in the last decade or so. 

What is going on? Why does western press and media seem so compelled to get behind the constantly warlike rhetoric of western politicians since their previous forays into this field have proven so disastrous for public trust in general and the targeted nations in particular?

Currently Russia, which long been lambasted as a kind of reconstituted Nazi Germany with a new Hitler, Vladimir Putin, at its head, is facing what appears to be an end game of unrelenting pressure from the West and its media is right behind these efforts. Seemingly completely unaware of its past support for such memes in the cases of Slobodan Milošević, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi it has ramped up this portrayal of highly targeted demonization where the wish to "bring on" war is inescapable.

Again, what is going on? What can explain the incredible degree of irresponsibility involved?

For me it all goes back to two factors:

1. 9/11 and the decision to eliminate all entities not obedient to western will.

2. The rise of Eurasia that will inevitably lead to the eclipse of western dominance.

These factors clearly represent a threat to the entire western world, 9/11 most obviously but the rise of Russia, China and others comprise an even greater threat economically and thus in terms of influence and manipulative power.

The identification of western elite power structures with each other is the prime factor in my opinion in solving this seeming mystery of the conclusion between press, media and state in fomenting war against certain targeted nations.

This can be seen virtually across the board in relation to reporting on a variety of nations from Venezuela to Nicaragua to Cuba to of course Russia and China. Now and then a somewhat critical article may appear regarding a western ally but these appear very seldom and do not reflect the consistent animosity in reporting toward the nations on America's 'A list'.

The slant of articles and programming across the western world's most prominent publications and news outlets against the target nations spoken of above is surely clear to everyone except those who are constantly imbued with the conditioned fervor of belief in the state narratives being conveyed.

Where do the principles of journalism figure in all this? Dedication to the truth no matter what. Principled devotion to ascertaining the facts and presenting a rigorously balanced picture of those facts with a minimum of opinion intervening. The right to reply and representation of those who are accused of transgressions. These fundamental precepts of good journalism are now completely missing. Now, for one reason or another opinion has become virtually all, assertions, speculations and accusations. Putin thinks this, Putin plans that, Russia did this, Russia may do that... this is what sells newspapers in the West and advertising and channel sponsors in the media. Generating controversy, increasing drama... sells.

And behind all this the determination to help western elites stay top dogs in the world because their ultimate fates regarding increasing or decreasing prosperity as press and media outlets as well as their status levels and career structures depend on the West winning out. Besides, these elites know each other well, they feed each other in incestuous fashion back and forward with briefings, meetings, intimate conversations and intel connections.

The onus is on obedience to the necessities involved in keeping the West great and eliminating those rising powers who it necessary to describe as a threat, as enemies with malign purposes. The world must be split in two with one half demonized and maligned constantly, almost to the extent where George Orwell's '1984' and its conditioned populations are mirrored, groomed for war and demonstrating necessary levels of fear and hate.

Western political elites can only do so much to foment war without the level of avid public backing needed to ensure minimal backlash.

This is where western press and media are such useful tools in the deadly enterprise embarked upon by their state elites, the fomenting and waging of the last world war.