Where Are The Antiwar Voices?

The United States government continues to engage in military operations across the globe, yet, when you turn on the mainstream news, how often do you hear strong antiwar voices? Rarely, if ever. This raises an important question: why are these perspectives so absent from the dominant media landscape?

Websites like Antiwar.com and The American Conservative provide a platform for robust antiwar commentary, yet they remain largely unknown to the general public. Antiwar.com features writers like Ron Paul and Scott Horton, who consistently critique U.S. foreign policy and advocate for non-interventionism. Similarly, The American Conservative publishes articles that challenge the military-industrial complex and question the endless cycle of wars. These voices are articulate, informed, and deeply critical of U.S. militarism—but they are not part of the mainstream conversation.

Why is this? Studies suggest that corporate-controlled media outlets have a vested interest in promoting pro-war narratives. For example, research by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) found that during critical moments leading up to U.S. military interventions, antiwar perspectives were almost entirely excluded from major news programs. Out of 205 guests discussing military options for Iraq and Syria on mainstream networks, only six opposed U.S. involvement. This lack of representation is not accidental—it reflects the alignment between corporate media and political elites who benefit from perpetuating war.

Moreover, historical analyses show that during times of conflict, mainstream media tends to rally around the flag. Journalists often become "patriotic partisans," echoing government narratives while marginalizing dissenting voices.This phenomenon has been observed repeatedly, from coverage of the Iraq War to more recent conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.

To hear strong antiwar arguments today, you must actively seek out alternative platforms like Antiwar.com or The American Conservative. These sites are not obscure because their content lacks merit; they are marginalized because their critiques threaten powerful interests tied to war profiteering and geopolitical dominance.

So why does it matter? Without diverse perspectives in public discourse, we risk normalizing perpetual war as an acceptable state of affairs. The absence of antiwar voices in mainstream media limits our ability to critically evaluate U.S. foreign policy and its consequences—both abroad and at home.

Perhaps it's time to ask ourselves: why do we have to dig so deep to find these voices? And what can we do to ensure they are heard?