Why Don't We Hear More Antiwar Voices in the Mainstream Media?

Why do we need to go out of our way to find antiwar voices online like on Antiwar.com or The American Conservative when there are so many mainstream news outlets? Why do these sites feel weird when their message seems so important?

Antiwar Protests

A lot of the biggest mainstream media outlets are owned by massive corporations that are connected to the defense industry. These companies don’t just sell weapons. They sell the idea that military intervention is necessary for peace. When mainstream media outlets run news about war, they’re not just covering the facts. They are reinforcing the idea that military action is a key part of maintaining global order. Although, antiwar voices tend to expose the uncomfortable reality of these interventions. For example, how they often lead to unnecessary deaths, economic instability, and long-term destruction. These voices don’t always get the spotlight when they challenge the financial interests tied to war as awful as it is. 

The U.S. military is typically portrayed as a force for good. We see images of heroes fighting to protect freedom and democracy. When the media covers a conflict they often say, "this is why we fight" and "this is why it’s justified." There’s an entire United States cultural narrative that we have a moral duty to intervene and get involved. Antiwar voices challenge that narrative. They argue that many of these wars don’t end in the way we’re told they will. Instead of spreading freedom and helping the situation, we end up making a bigger mess and becoming more in debt. For example, like we talking about in class with Israel. We are sending troops and billions of dollars to wars that don't involve us. That’s a huge chunk of money that could be better spent addressing issues in the United States like healthcare, education, and climate change. Or natural disasters like Hurricane Helene in North Carolina or the fires in Pasadena, California.

War also makes for great TV. Explosions, dramatic rescue missions, and even death grab people’s attention. The adrenaline rush of war stories draws in viewers, clicks, and likes. Antiwar perspectives do not. Talking about the long-term costs of war, the human impact, and the consequences of intervention isn’t as interesting as the breaking news of the latest military operation. Unfortunately the media often chooses stories that generate the most excitement in all situations. Antiwar voices aren’t as engaging when the goal is to keep people watching or reading. They ask questions like "Was this war necessary?" or "Who actually benefits from this?" These ideas tend to get less airtime because they don’t fit into the narrative of immediate action and victory.

The internet has changed everything. Where once there were just a few big news networks that everyone watched, now there are thousands of independent platforms, blogs, and podcasts giving people alternative perspectives. Antiwar.com and The American Conservative are places where people who are fed up with the mainstream narrative can go for more in-depth analysis and critique. Since these outlets aren’t part of the mainstream media ecosystem, they don’t have the same visibility. Mainstream news outlets are easy to access and typically provide stories that support the status quo. If you don’t actively look for other viewpoints, you’re more likely to get the same type of coverage that doesn’t challenge the idea that military force is the best way to handle global problems.