Blog Post #5

    Strong antiwar voices are shunned in mainstream media. Although the internet gives antiwar movements a platform to reach millions of people, they are blacked out by the media due to their divergent views. Over the past few decades, the United States has waged many wars beginning with the bombing of Iraq and other combat operations in the Middle East. The media has sided with the government's narrative that the wars are necessary and benefit the U.S. as a paragon of democracy in the world. Antiwar voices are forced to rely on their websites because they are considered too radical for the mainstream media. While their antiwar sentiments may be rational and well-founded, they are deemed controversial. The media is inclined to support the government while benefiting economically from the news interest spikes. The mainstream attempts to remain the primary source of information during the war to attract higher ratings.

    The media and their parents' organizations love war due to the interest it sparks among the citizens. The life and death stories from the war captivate viewers and increase the ratings of the different programs. A new war creates headlines, content for front pages, and topics for morning shows. While the reporters are not directly seeking to fight, the incentives of reporting war are essential to their careers; thereby. hard to resist. Journalists are inclined to highlight the success of the country on the different war fronts. This boosts American nationalism and heroes among the population. Additionally, propagating the views of antiwar activists is construed as furthering the propaganda of the enemy. For example, a person denouncing the US government's aid to Ukraine is considered to be supporting Russian aggression and expansionism. The television organization is likely to receive negative reviews and bad publicity. Hence, economic interests influence mainstream media houses to shun antiwar voices. 

    Various organizations use their websites to campaign against America's involvement in armed conflicts. For example, United for Peace and Justice denounces the US government's involvement in the Middle East and its high military spending. In addition, the Answer Coalition opposes the global wars and the varying levels of participation by American soldiers. Despite their efforts to raise awareness of the antiwar movement, they are not widely accessed by the public. Although the mainstream media has shunned antiwar voices, they can use their websites to attract new members to the movement. These organizations should publicize themselves extensively in cyberspace to compensate for the blackout from the mainstream media. 

    Individuals forage on the internet to access obscure sites to hear strong antiwar voices. Despite the proliferation of the internet, traditional media still plays a major role in the dissemination of information. Television and radio stations largely shape the opinions of the public on various issues, including war. The positive support emanating from traditional media organizations creates a perception that many of the citizens back the government's narrative. The media blackout on strong antiwar voices limits their visibility on the internet. An interested ready is forced to purposively look for antiwar websites to hear divergent opinions about the American government's involvement in the war. Besides, most of the population accepts the mainstream narrative about these wars. The lack of prominent antiwar crusaders adversely affects their efforts to create public awareness. Hence, the public should purposely search for antiwar websites to hear divergent voices on the different wars waged by the US.