In the wake of the recent attack by the US on a (mostly empty) air base in Syria, the reaction from media outlets considered to be mainstream and/or liberal has been baffling. Pundits at CNN and The New York Times, who have been at the receiving end of the 45th President’s hateful tweets for not being supportive of him, have suddenly decided he is presidential and that the strike was a good idea. Never mind that the air base was likely emptied out beforehand and that the 180 degree change in Trump policy over a day or so shows a dangerous impulsiveness, if anything.
Also, Trump’s citing of the atrocities caused by the sarin gas attacks as a heart-changer are bullshit crocodile tears. He has no tears for civilian deaths in US led air strikes in Yemen and Iraq under his watch.
To be fair, I have read a few critical pieces at mainstream center or center-left media. The Washington Post comes to mind.
As a person who leans left/progressive, but tries to stay informed of all points of view to avoid the bubble problem, it is a little shocking that one prominent conservative site is far more critical of the Syria action than much of the allegedly liberal media.
examples, all from The American Conservative, a site whose views I almost never align with…
….and that’s not even all of them.
I can not fathom why traditionally liberal sources are not bristling with the same kind of anti-Trump editorial fire at this point.