By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A planned Washington D.C. military parade, celebrating the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary, is generating significant media coverage diversity. While Fox News and NewsNation plan extensive live broadcasts, major networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS will offer limited coverage, primarily through streaming platforms, due to pre-existing programming commitments. The parade’s high cost ($25-$45 million) and potential disruption have raised concerns, contrasted with its unique, potentially propagandistic nature. This division in coverage highlights the event’s controversial aspects and its complex relationship with mainstream media.
Read the original article here
Trump Military Parade May Not Get Much Coverage on CBS, NBC, ABC
A potential military parade orchestrated by Donald Trump might not receive extensive coverage on major networks like CBS, NBC, and ABC. The reasons for this potential lack of coverage are multifaceted and stem from a variety of perspectives. Many believe such an event would be a waste of resources, a vulgar display of authoritarian power, and an unnecessary spectacle.
The argument against extensive coverage often centers on the idea that a military parade, while showcasing military strength, fails to represent the true might of America. The nation’s strength, many argue, lies in its ideals, laws, and the valiant protection of those ideals by its military. A parade, in this view, would be a misrepresentation of these core values, overshadowing the deeper meaning of American strength.
This perspective further suggests that the event is antithetical to the spirit of Independence Day, a holiday celebrating the nation’s founding documents and the rejection of tyranny. A military parade, conversely, is seen as a symbol of authoritarianism, a sharp contrast to the principles celebrated on the Fourth of July. This perceived contradiction in messaging leads some to believe the event doesn’t deserve extensive media attention.
Some believe that giving the parade significant airtime would be playing into Trump’s hands, feeding his ego and offering him a platform for self-promotion. The argument is that ignoring the event is a more effective means of diminishing its perceived significance. The focus should instead remain on more important issues.
Furthermore, the potential for the event to be seen as propaganda is a significant concern. Many believe that journalism should strive to remain objective and unbiased, and a military parade, even if covered neutrally, might still inadvertently lend itself to propagandistic interpretations. This concern extends beyond mere optics; it reflects a deep distrust of using the military for political grandstanding.
The lack of significant prior precedent for military parades in the United States further fuels the skepticism surrounding the event. The rarity of such events suggests they are not a necessary component of demonstrating national strength and instead hints at a possible attempt to emulate the style of less democratic regimes.
The counterargument, naturally, exists. Some might argue that major networks have a responsibility to report on all significant events, regardless of their perceived value or political implications. However, the prevailing sentiment among many seems to be that ignoring the spectacle would be a more powerful statement than providing extensive coverage.
Many also believe that the resources dedicated to covering a military parade could be better utilized in covering more pressing issues – be it social justice movements, economic struggles, or any number of significant news stories that may occur simultaneously. The allocation of media resources, therefore, becomes a critical aspect in deciding whether or not the parade is worthy of extensive coverage.
In conclusion, the potential for limited coverage of a Trump-orchestrated military parade on major networks stems from a confluence of factors. From the perceived incompatibility with core American values to the fear of legitimizing authoritarian displays, many believe such an event would be better served by minimal media attention, allowing other news to take the forefront and preventing any unintentional propagation of potentially damaging political messaging.