Follow us on social

||||

Out of sight, out of mind: Afghanistan vanishes from US news

New data shows stunning plunge in coverage, just as the humanitarian crisis — much of it caused by Washington sanctions — peaks.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Despite unprecedented levels of hunger and starvation for which U.S. sanctions bear important responsibility, Afghanistan has once again virtually disappeared from the most important single source of world news for most Americans.

Since September, which marked the end of U.S. efforts to evacuate its citizens and its foreign and Afghan allies, the evening news programs of the three dominant U.S. television networks — ABC, NBC, and CBS — have collectively devoted a grand total of 21 minutes — spread over ten story segments — to Afghanistan. 

That marks a stunning plunge in evening news attention from a total of 427 minutes devoted to Afghanistan in the two previous months, about 75 percent of which were broadcast in August during the Taliban’s takeover of the country and the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. and allied personnel. Just one three-minute segment has aired since December 1.

“For the American networks this year, what was newsworthy was the fall of Kabul and the pullout of U.S. troops, not the fate of the Afghan people in the aftermath,” noted Andrew Tyndall, editor of the authoritative Tyndall Report, which has monitored the three networks’ nightly news broadcasts each weekday since 1988.

Moreover, 15 of those 21 minutes devoted to Afghanistan between October 1 to December 25 had nothing to do with its increasingly desperate humanitarian crisis that threatens nearly 23 million people — or more than half the country’s population — with “extreme levels of hunger,” and as many as one million children with death due to severe acute malnutrition this winter.

Indeed, four of the ten segments were hopeful, “feel-good” stories focused almost entirely on U.S.-based efforts to help former Afghan allies who are adapting to their new lives in the United States or are still trying to flee the country. A fifth story dealt with an initiative to help Afghan girls continue their education in computer coding remotely, and a sixth was a heart-warming segment about U.S. Army medics who served in Afghanistan in 2011.

Only two of the ten news segments addressed the unfolding humanitarian disaster, which was described by the Trump-appointed director of the UN’s World Food Program, former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, as “hell on earth” earlier this month.

While the major cable news networks often receive more media attention, the three network evening news shows collectively remain the single most important source of international news in the United States. 

On weekday evenings, an average of about 20 million U.S. viewers tune in to national news programs on CBS, ABC, or NBC. That’s roughly four times the number of people who rely on the major cable stations — Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN — for their news during prime time. About two million more people watch the network news via the internet, according to Tyndall.

What appears on the national networks often exerts a major influence on the news agenda at other U.S. media organizations. “Because network news shows are the most mainstream of the mainstream media,” Tyndall told Responsible Statecraft, “they can be used as a proxy for the news judgment of mainstream media more generally.” 

As I noted in an article published in August, a major reason why Americans were so shocked by the dramatic collapse of the U.S.-supported regime in Kabul was the fact that the three weekday evening news programs devoted a combined total of only five minutes to coverage of Afghanistan during all of 2020. More recently tabulated statistics compiled by the Tyndall Report show that Afghanistan was entirely absent from the network evening news in January through March of 2021 and claimed a total of only 82 minutes between April and the end of July before hitting 345 minutes in August when the Taliban swept across the country and entered Kabul. In September, by which time the Taliban had taken full control and virtually all Americans had left Afghanistan, the combined network total fell sharply to 82 minutes only to fall even further, to ten minutes in October.

The two three-minute segments that addressed the growing humanitarian and hunger crisis aired on NBC Nightly News and ABC Evening News on November 17 and December 15, respectively. 

To be fair, the CBS news organization as a whole devoted much more attention to the disastrous situation in Afghanistan than indicated by its evening news program. In fact, it alerted its “CBS Mornings” audience to the brewing crisis back on October 20 when it cited UN warnings that “95 percent of people in Afghanistan are going hungry” and featured an on-site account by correspondent Imtiaz Tyab. 

But the morning network news shows generally attract only about a third of the audiences of their evening counterparts.

Much more commendable was CBS’s coverage of the humanitarian crisis in a nearly 15-minute segment featured on the December 12 edition of “60 Minutes,” the nation’s most widely watched prime-time public affairs program whose audience normally numbers about nine million. “Negotiating with the Taliban” featured interviews not only with representatives of international humanitarian groups, but also with the Taliban’s health minister.

What was missing in the “60 Minutes” segment, as with the two evening news segments about the crisis on the ABC and NBC, however, was any focus on the U.S. role in restricting or blocking funding that could help alleviate its catastrophic impact. As noted by Julie Hollar of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the ABC reporter referred only to a “mix of sanctions and drought” as the crisis’s main causes, while NBC’s segment concluded its report by simply noting the Taliban’s appeal to “the United States and other governments to unblock funds frozen since the takeover.” Even the “60 Minutes” story failed to note Washington’s contribution to the crisis, insisting instead that it was the much vaguer “international community” that was responsible for “freezing Afghan assets, shutting down foreign aid, and extending sanctions.”

While that characterization is technically true, the main driver of these actions since August has been the United States, which froze $9.5 billion of (Afghanistan’s own) foreign reserves, pressured the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to delay emergency support, and effectively denied Afghanistan’s banks access to the international financial system. 

While the Biden administration in recent days has eased some restrictions on aid to non-governmental and international organizations in response to increasing international and Congressional pressure, as well as an appeal by former senior U.S. military officers and diplomats who served in Afghanistan, one would think that Washington’s responsibility for the Afghan people’s current plight would be highly relevant to U.S. news organizations purportedly dedicated to informing American citizens about what their government is doing.

After all, taxpayers have spent an estimated $2.3 trillion and lost more than 2,400 service members during Washington’s 20-year war in Afghanistan. And the three networks’ weekday evening news broadcasts themselves devoted a total of 5,590 minutes to covering that war over that same period.

But more than 90 percent of those 93-plus hours, Tyndall told Responsible Statecraft in August, was devoted to the U.S. role in the actual fighting. 

No more U.S. soldiers and marines on the ground, no more coverage on the evening news, and Afghanistan, despite Washington’s enormous impact on the country, both through its military intervention and now through its sanctions, fades quickly into distant memory. Left behind: 23 million Afghans at risk of starvation to add to the roughly 176,000 Afghans killed during America’s longest war.


An Afghan woman holds her child as she and others wait to receive package being distributed by a Turkish humanitarian aid group at a distribution centre in Kabul, Afghanistan, December 15, 2021. REUTERS/Ali Khara|Courtesy of Tyndall Report|||Courtesy of the Tyndall Report
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.