You know, that Press creates (or incites) wars. The American Conservative suddenly (and good for them) decided to take a look at how US media Helps To Start Wars.
Nevertheless, it would be naïve to assume that the jingoist press did not play a significant role in causing the war against Spain. Indeed, the corrupt role of yellow journalism in creating public support for that conflict is not a particularly controversial proposition among historians.The role of an irresponsible press in shaping a pro-war narrative was even more evident in the prelude to the 2003 U.S. military intervention in Iraq.
Well, I have some news--MOST of US Press, with some very minor exceptions is yellow and is staffed with some, mostly badly educated and completely ideologically indoctrinated (be that left, right or whatever else) pretentious creeps who think that they have valuable skills and by the virtue of their names or mugs being present or exposed in public spaces have the right to express their opinions on military and geopolitical matters about which they have no clue.
I commend the author of this piece, Ted Gallen Carpenter, for this conclusion:
As is so often the case with Trump’s arguments, his accusation that the press can cause wars is an exaggeration, but one that contains an important kernel of truth. Irresponsible media coverage has undoubtedly strengthened public sentiment for ill-advised wars in the past, and it could do so again in the future. The sometimes shrill hostility of the mainstream media towards Russia is pushing the United States toward an increasingly hardline policy that now borders on a second cold war. The original Cold War nearly escalated to a hot one on several occasions. The press needs to be doubly cautious about pushing policies that would send America down a similar perilous path. Trump is wrong to brand the press as an enemy of the people, but it is still a powerful institution that has not always used its great influence responsibly regarding matters of war and peace.
But it is time to face the truth--if not for war criminals, as an example, such as ambitious ignorant bimbo Christian Amanpour and her "journalist" brethren who went into the direct propaganda for Kosovo Jihadists and criminals, there wouldn't have been a political pressure on Bill Clinton to start war against Serbia. If not for loud mouth ignoramuses from Western so called "news" outlets who support still all kinds of Islamic terrorists from Al Qaeda to ISIS and follow Jihadist' narrative on "chemical weapons"--the tragedy of Syria might have been avoided. So, NO! They not only "play the role"--they participate in atrocities directly by lying to everybody and are as culpable as political cowards who give the orders to bomb and dismantle one nation after another. Those people are no good, pathetic pretentious creeps who, at some point of time, will have to answer for their huge role in bringing the world to the brink of a new global war and they, from Wall Street Journal to NYT, to WaPo, to imbeciles in HuffPo know damn well who they are--they might look up the fate of Goebbels' accomplices after Nuremberg Trials to contemplate what they might be against in the future.
There is no such profession as "journalist", nor there any academically sound foundation for people getting their BA or other graduate degrees in handling microphones and cameras and studying how others BSed the nation before them--anyone with IQ slightly above room temperature and AA degree in English Language or Literature with agile enough tongue can become a "journalist". Whores are more honorable because they do not pretend to be moved by high moral standards--they are into it just to make an honest buck. Western media are pathetic and they are dangerous for the freedom of speech. They are dangerous for their own nations, they are dangerous for the world, of which they know nothing but increasingly irrelevant narratives.