1.We disagree on one point; if you've directly CAUSED a problem, then you're morally responsible to try to rectify what you've done wrong. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, then you, Machiavelli and many others can make a sound academic case for non-intervention. However, the odds on your gov't. being TRULY non-interventionist are practically zero, as you well know.So, if they've determined to posit themselves as world leaders, then they should act in a morally upright manner that one should expect of a genuine, worthy leader.The problem with this is that it ensures that there will never be a non-intervention "crutch" as you call it. I say fugg that. You can't do anything about the past but you can certainly do something about the future.
Stay out of everybody's business and let the chips fall where they may. If folks decide that they want to kill each other you can't come crying to the US to prevent it. It's cold but whattayagunnado? :shrug:
As far as what some news organization covers or doesn't cover, in this age of the internet, what's the problem?
2. To me, it again comes down to credibility; many mainstream news agencies heavily put on airs as arbiters of justice and truth-seekers. So, if they blatantly ignore a war of aggression and sex-slave racket just because the offenders are buddies with the agency director's government, then they can't blame us for thinking that they are complete frauds. It's one major reason--maybe the #1 reason--why so many now turn to the alternative media. To be fair, though, THOSE media members are flawed human beings, too