Anti-War Post

 

Where Did All the Antiwar Voices Go?

Before this week, I had never heard of Antiwar.com or The American Conservative. I'm a journalism student. I read the news every day for class and follow a bunch of news accounts on TikTok and Instagram, and I still had no idea these sites existed.

When I opened Antiwar.com, the headlines were stuff I barely see anywhere else: how the Pentagon counts (and leaves out) troops killed in war, a piece on how war propaganda justifies conscription, and warnings from Yemen's Ansar Allah about the U.S. entering another war. The American Conservative runs a daily "Iran War Day 208" update. Day 208. I knew there was conflict with Iran, but seeing a running count made me realize how normal it has become to not think about it. What surprised me most was that one of these sites is openly conservative, and the other brings together writers from the left and the libertarian right. Antiwar views don't belong to one party, which makes it even weirder that they get so little airtime.antiwar+1

So why do we have to go looking for these voices? I think there are a few reasons.

First, mainstream news depends on access. War reporters rely on the Pentagon, the White House, and "senior officials" for information. If you keep calling out the people who give you your sources, those sources can stop calling back. So coverage ends up framed the way officials frame it: strikes, targets, strategy. It's rarely framed as "should we even be doing this?"

Anti-War Propaganda (1940)

Second, money. Big networks are owned by huge corporations, and they need advertisers and ratings. War coverage with cool graphics and dramatic footage gets views. A commentator questioning the whole premise of a war is less exciting, and it can be seen as "unpatriotic," which scares off audiences and sponsors. Much of the cable news "expert" pool is retired generals or think-tank people, and some have ties to defense contractors.

Third, the algorithm. Even on social media, where you'd think anyone can be heard, platforms push what's already popular. Smaller independent sites don't have huge marketing budgets, so they get buried unless you go searching.

This connects directly to what we learned about the Progressive Era. During World War I, people like Eugene Debs were thrown in jail just for speaking out against the war and the draft. In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court said antiwar leaflets could be punished because they created a "clear and present danger." But later that same year, in Abrams v. United States, Justice Holmes dissented and argued for what became known as the "marketplace of ideas," the idea that the best test of truth is letting ideas compete openly. That dissent helped build the modern First Amendment we have today.

Today, nobody is getting arrested for writing on Antiwar.com. The government isn't banning these views like it did in 1918. But if those voices never make it onto the big platforms, is the marketplace of ideas actually working? Having the legal right to speak doesn't mean much if hardly anyone hears you. It's less about censorship and more about who gets the microphone.

As someone who wants to go into broadcast journalism, this is a little uncomfortable to think about, because I'm going to be part of the system that decides which voices get airtime. I don't think every antiwar argument is automatically right, and it's smart to fact-check these sites just like any other source. But the public deserves to hear the full debate, especially when lives are on the line. Dissent is supposed to be part of the conversation, not something you have to dig for.

Image 1 - https://yalealumnimagazine.org/articles/4331-the-forgotten-antiwar-movement