Main Edition
US
FR
January 7, 2025 - 1:00pm
Defeat, it is said, is a better teacher than success. The US Democratic Party has just suffered a shattering defeat, and desperately needs to learn from it. In the area of foreign policy, at least, this however appears unlikely — at least to judge by two interviews given by outgoing Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the New York Times and Financial Times.
Of course, it would be unfair to expect Blinken to blast his own record. Nonetheless, after such a defeat one might reasonably have expected something akin to the level of introspection and self-criticism shown by President Obama in an interview with The Atlantic in 2016; but Blinken acknowledges no errors at all. Given the situations now prevailing in the Middle East and Ukraine, it is hard to see how anyone can read this with a straight face.
Blinken’s incredible complacency is matched only by the softball nature of the interviews themselves. In one section of the NYT interview, for example, reporters pressed Blinken on the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan, but only in order to suggest that the Biden administration should somehow have prevented a Taliban victory. Surprisingly, the interviewer did not make a connection to a brilliant series of NYT articles last year on the true nature of the US-backed Afghan state and army, which also showed how throughout the Obama administration and the first year of Biden’s, the American media and people were systematically lied to on Afghanistan by US officials and generals. Why was this not mentioned?
Similarly, on Ukraine, the interviewer did not hold Blinken to account on how official Biden administration predictions of Ukrainian victory differed radically from the actual situation on the ground; and how this chimera (whether of deceit or self-deceit) helped to block a peace settlement when Ukraine might have achieved one on much better terms.
To its credit, the NYT did press Blinken quite hard on Israeli atrocities in Gaza, and the Biden administration’s refusal to take action to end them. The FT by contrast asked Blinken whether his words about a Chinese “genocide” in Sinkiang, also apply to Israel in Gaza. The interviewer let him get away with a one word reply: “No”.
Against the background of US policy towards Gaza, how should one take a statement like “Friends and critics like to say that Tony — as he is universally known in Washington — is ‘too nice’”? Another British journalist in Washington in conversation also sought to excuse the nauseating lies and staged emotional displays of White House spokesman John Kirby on the grounds of his personal “niceness”. Or to adapt the words of another Antony, “But Blinken says there is no genocide, and sure Blinken is the nicest of men; so are they all, all nice men.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe question as to whether there is a “genocide” in Gaza doesn’t require any more than a one-word reply: “No”.
It’s pretty funny that in your effort to attack the liberal-media consensus in the U.S. you use the worst liberal-media consensus-driven lazy-as-shit fiction of all : the so-called “genocide” in Gaza.
Your analysis amounts to an attack on a far-left administration from the point of view of someone who thinks that they aren’t far-left enough.
Biden didn’t support Israel nearly enough. That’s what they should have pressed him on.
The so-called “genocide” in gaza is a lawfare-upgrading of the ancient anti-Jewish blood-libel.
Shove it.
And so Paul MacDonnell exits from humanity.
You should try saying that to human beings, you might learn a thing or two.
Thank you for this comment. This is the truth.
The legacy media is bought and paid for so they soft ball people they like and froth at the mouth for trump and his ilk. No one believes that approach anyway as everyone gets their news online for the most part which is why the right is making huge gains in many parts of the world. We are all sick of the obvious lies and pandering the liberal side have given these last ten or so years and we want change. Blinken being sorry balked is the exact thing I expected when he earlier into that press room first time as the legacy media choose sides.
The past nine years of progressives experimenting with a post-modern relativist concept of activist journalism has led to this moment of ‘Fake News You Cannot Trust’ in the US.
There was a time when news bias was not as prominent, so the net value proposition remained positive for consumers. Folks could rely on these news sources 70-80 percent of the time for key news stories and to gather some facts.
Nowadays, more recent news sources like Unherd and The Free Press are getting the scoops and breaking news stories first because their journalism credentials (seeking facts and truth above all) are far more reliable than the debased credentials of the activist journalist class.
I remember being shocked when WaPo, and subsequently other organizations, debased their ‘trust’ credentials – presenting mis and disinformation over and over again – merely to serve their flawed confirmation bias.
Did they really want to become known as the Leftist version of Fox News – the very organization that they once mocked for being Fake News?
But there was a difference … Fox News was and is known as Right Leaning. WaPo, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc, wanted to go ‘Leftist Activist’ while lying through their teeth that they were still trustworthy. Inconceivably they believed that they could still retain their ‘trust’ credentials while slanting their reporting.
“We’re not Fox News! We’re trustworthy!”, they’d proclaim as they reported the fake ‘Trump Russia Collusion’ narrative for three years, the fake ‘Hunter Laptop Is Russian Disinformation’ narrative for three years, the fake ‘Biden Is Cognitively Brilliant And Is In Charge At The White House!’ narrative for four years, the fake ‘Trump Is A Hitler Russian Spy blah blah blah …’ for nine years, the fake ‘US Afghanistan Withdrawal Is Great US Success’ for three years, the fake ‘Economy Is Fantastic With Only Minimal Transitory Inflation, Everyone Should Be Happy’ for four years, etc.
They made / make the organizational mistake of starting with ‘Form a (Progressive) Conclusion’ and then – with their preferred conclusion firmly in mind – working their way back to ‘Ask a Question’ and ‘Form a Hypothesis.’
Now, these former news organizations are seen as ‘entertainment organizations’ like Fox News. Yet even Fox News, with their known Right-side bias, has been more accurate than these former news organizations on the biggest stories.
I don’t mind if these former news organizations and the journalist activist class want to be the Left’s version of Fox News and Tucker Carlson. Fox and Carlson did it, and so can they. Just don’t throw a tantrum when the public comes to view them as biased and/or extreme entertainment rather than as trusted news sources.
Although the public trust in the legacy media — that percentage that pays any attention to it whatever — has never been lower, it is fair to ask why it isn’t lower still. Stupidity must be a large factor, as large as partisanship.
Blinken’s lack of cleverness exhibited itself in his first visit to Beijing as Secretary of State. When he confronted his Chinese counterpart on the human rights violations of the CCP against the Uighurs he was hit in the face with quotations from the current U.S. Democratic Party platform detailing the inherent systemic racism and endemic lack of justice in America. He was totally caught off guard and appeared an unprepared and hypocritical fool.
Blinken did in fact express one self-criticism at least, albeit not the the one that the NYT interviewer – and this shallow “opinion” piece – expected: he admitted that every time that he would openly pressure Israel to wind back the war in Gaza, Hamas would harden its positions in the hostage release negotiations. Because they thought that, with the US ensuring their survival, why should they compromise?
This was obvious to anyone observing the dynamics in real time. Still, this level of introspection is unusual in contemporary politics. Or for that matter, among pundits like Lieven, who are living in a moral fantasy world where the Western democracies that indulge them are bad, and autocracies and theocracies which would kill them in a heartbeat are good.
This is my impression of Blinken. Before commenting I must state that I am pro Israel. Blinken’s interview and speech in Jerusalem with Netanyahu immediately following the Oct 7 atrocity was truly cringeworthy. If ever a man was beholden to another country while holding high office in his own this speech illustrated that. Which was good for Israel. It set the tone for the great assistance given to Israel by the US. It did however in my eyes diminish the man. A reliable flunky is he. I would use him but never employ him. He lacks substance.
To its credit, the NYT did press Blinken quite hard on Israeli atrocities in Gaza
.
Dear Anatol Lieven, are you familiar with the feeling of shame?
.
P.S. For the readers of the UnHerd. There is another circumstance that the author does not want to see, creating a picture that is completely inconsistent with reality.
.
After October 7th, the headless body of an IDF soldier was found. It turned out that the Hamas man who cut off the head expected to sell it for $10,000.
The fighters of the IDF elite unit, with the tank’s support, received an order to get to the building, which is located in one of the central squares of the enclave. There, in the refrigerator of an ice cream parlor, they found a bag with tennis balls, documents of the terrorist and Takhar’s head.
You really don’t think after the repetition of the baby hoax, the rape hoax, the failure to report that IDF killed half the victims of October 7th (confirmed by Haaretz) that western media wouldn’t have printed that if there were a scintilla of evidence?
Regarding UK.
Why does Unherd deflect all criticism away from Starmer?
“We have no allegiance to any political party”
That is from their “Mission Statement”,
It is a lie.
On this side of the Atlantic. Why is Unherd giving Starner an easy ride?
No criticism at all. No reporting of Musk’s accusations against him.
The answer. In UK Unherd politically support Starmer.
A very simple answer. To a very simple question.
Can’t figure out quite why you’re so upset about this.
First point – Elon Musk doesn’t need any help getting his views heard. There is no shortage of reporting or gap for UnHerd to fill here.
Are you assuming that Starmer actually reads UnHerd and that it would make a difference ?
Are you assuming that UnHerd readers need to be told what to think here ? That’s not what UnHerd is supposed to be about. And – I suspect – generally induces the opposite reaction.
Then where is your actual evidence that UnHerd supports Starmer ? First you claim omission. Then you move on to claiming active endorsement. Which is it to be ?
I’m no fan of Starmer, but at some point he’s going to do something right (they aren’t competent enough to be consistently wrong) and an honest UnHerd article should recognise that.
Omission and endorsement amount to the same in the media. What is spin? Deflect the accusation, turn on the messenger, belittle them with smears and insults. Everything that makes conversation and debate impossible.
I wouldn’t particularly mind if Unherd just came out and endorsed Starmer.
But they claim to be a media outlet which represents and presents the unherd.
To me, this is a lie. And I subscribed to Unherd on a lie.
You are free to cancel your subscription if you wish.
And will Unherd (stupid name) give me my money back?
When you are on topic you develop interesting ideas.
These random and tiresomely repetitive rants don’t do you much justice
Actually, it’s rather witty. Go to a pub and have a pint.
I will give you your money back if you cancel
It is the biggest news story in weeks. And of course in fact decades. Can’t believe it isn’t covered more fully by Unherd.