“War must never be considered a public relations operation.”
“The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as ‘presidential’ is concerning,” Rather wrote in a Facebook post on Friday. “War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in the immediate wake of the first strike.”
Cable news personalities on Friday seemed to equate the legitimacy of a U.S. president with dropping bombs. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria stated that “Donald Trump became president of the United States” when the strikes started, while The Washington Post’s David Ignatius said on MSNBC that the commander in chief had “put pure more umph, more credibility” back into “American power.” MSNBC’s Brian Williams went so far as to call the Tomahawk missiles ― which state-run Syrian media reported killed at least nine people, including four children — “beautiful.”
Rather pointed out that no matter what someone’s opinion on whether the airstrike was the correct course of action, the media’s job is to ask difficult questions, not drool over the spectacle of war:
Read Rather’s whole post below.
The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. It is an awesome responsibility. Committing the use of force and American men and women in uniform is about as serious as it gets. But the truly great presidents understand that knowing when NOT to act is as important as knowing when to act.
It is a whole lot easier starting wars than finishing them. And there are many historical examples of where a promise of limited engagement quickly metastasized into something much bigger.
There is a tendency to rally around the flag, and a President who takes on a war footing can see a boost of support. It is often transitory. There are arguments to be made that President Assad in Syria has crossed a line that demands U.S. military interference. Whether this should have been a unilateral action is something we all must consider. Whether President Trump has a plan for what comes next must be debated. Whether there is a coherence to this missile strike fitting into a larger foreign policy strategy is a question that should give us all pause.
The role of the press is to ask hard questions. There is ample evidence that this Administration needs to face deep scrutiny. The lies we have heard, the chaos in governance, and the looming questions about ties with Russia – itself a major player in Syria – demand that the press treat this latest action with healthy skepticism. Perhaps it was the right thing to do. Perhaps a strong and wise policy will emerge. But that judgement is still definitely hanging in the balance.
The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as “presidential” is concerning. War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in the immediate wake of the first strike.