I’ve read what seems like a billion pieces on Trump’s withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan & I’ve noticed a pattern: a lot of the experts quoted are establishment people who have been in Washington for decades. Are reporters allergic to restrainers (or a realists)?
For instance, take @SangerNYT’s piece earlier today (nytimes.com/2018/12/21/us/… ). He quotes Daniel Shapiro, Leon Panetta and Robert Kagan - all fine people. But all in the same mold. How about broadening the net a bit?
.@wrightr does a better job of interviewing experts with diverse views on the region’s politics and America’s place in them, with quotes Paul Salem, Martin Indyk, Jeffrey Feltman, and Ryan Crocker (newyorker.com/news/our-colum…). But again, restrainers not represented.
Point being that if you want hard-core realists, you need to read stories in the Examiner, the Daily Caller, Breitbart, & some progressive publications. Why aren’t mainstream outlets reaching out to these people? The American people deserve a broader cross-section of thought.
If Americans only get one view of things, they are bound to be led astray. Reporters (in general, certainly not all) need to do a better job of contacting folks who may actually have more non-interventionist tendencies.
