ANTI WAR NEWS EXPOSURE

  The Anti-War perspective has been a silenced viewpoint since the beginning of politics. Mainstream media has always strived to distract society from being exposed to the anti war movement. It seems that with every major war event, there is always a group of anti war individuals who are silenced. I think that part of this is because the news had correlated an anti war mindset with a negative and unpatriotic concept. I do not think that wanting peace or tranquility in life is a bad thing. It is strange how the peaceful and unproblematic side is the one that is seen to be the most "damaging" to society. There are also rarely any issues with these anti-war individuals because since they strive for peace, they will practice what they preach. There are definitely two sides to the argument which makes it so easy to be shut down by news outlets. 

    Educating the news on different solutions to corruption or conflict is something that needs to happen as soon as possible. For some reason, when there is a new international threat or dispute the first comment in question is: "What does this mean for America? Will President ___ speak on the issue and are they communicating with our military troops?" Every single headline is the exact same and is covering the same stories. If news is about diversity and truth then where are the other perspectives being shared? Nowhere. If they are being shared, they are being shared through smaller outlets where they know that no coverage will come out of it. In these articles, the reader is exposed to extremely passionate writing that makes the audience feel connected to the issue. In mainstream media and news outlets, society is exposed to emotionless and lazy writing that bores the readers and viewers. Why is this? Why are people drawn to this option? What needs to change in media for these roles to swap?