http://readability.com/m?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2F8K1LL
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Syria: Shameful Performance of
Western Media
The performance of the Western
media (American, British, French and
others) regarding the Syrian conflict
has been quite shameful. One does
not expect much from American
media. Ill-informed foreign editors
and correspondents and political
cowardice turn American media into
tools of US foreign policy.
This is especially true when it comes
to coverage of the Middle East, where
extra political courage and
uncharacteristic level of knowledge
and expertise are rather rare, even
though they are essential to
challenging US foreign policy. But
when it comes to Syria, British media
– including the liberal Guardian which
has often been brave in challenging
Western foreign policies and wars –
have been indistinguishable from
American media.
These media have failed their readers
on many levels. Their shortcomings
can be summarized as follows:
1. Resorting to methods of
documentations that are never
accepted when covering the Arab-
Israeli conflict; like the reliance on
accounts of people through Skype
and email whose names are not
obtained through a random process,
and the reliance on Saudi or Qatari
press media offices.
2. Hiding behind the cliché that "the
Syrian government does not allow
journalists in" to justify the various
anthologies of errors contained in
media reports. Many journalists have
either been allowed in or have
managed to sneak in, so the general
disclaimer used daily in the New York
Times is inaccurate and misleads
readers. Such a disclaimer is never
used against Israel, which imposes
rigid forms of censorship on reports
emanating from Israel, especially
when Israel is perpetrating its
regular war crimes and massacres.
3. The reliance on exile Syrian
opposition reports without any
scrutiny or healthy skepticism.
4. The assumption that Saudi-funded
or Qatari-funded media outfits don't
carry the agendas of those
governments.
5. Obscuring on purpose the heavy
role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the
Syrian exile opposition in order to
project a deceptive image of a secular
opposition.
6. The role that most Western
journalists and correspondents have
played on Twitter to cheerlead the
Free Syrian Army and the Syrian exile
opposition. The pretense of objectivity
is discarded.
7. The consistent reliance (especially in
the US press) on "experts" from the
Zionist Washington Institute for Near
East Policy as if it has no ideological
lobbying agenda. Reference to that
institute only informs the readers of its
political slant – to put it mildly.
8. The deliberate distortion and mis-
characterization of one side in the
conflict.
9. The insistence that Bashar al-Assad
has no power base in Syria – outside
of the Alawi community – when the
endurance shown by the regime
requires more than a resort to brute
force, which the regime is known for.
10. The gap between past coverage of
Syria which disregarded human rights
violations by the Assad regime during
its years of understanding with
Western governments and the sudden
discovery of the brutality of the
regime.
11. The obsession with Israeli
concerns: the media audaciously
covers the Israeli-originated story
about Syrian chemical weapons
without ever mentioning the vast
arsenal of Israeli WMDs.
12. Lack of verification of published
information.
13. Blurring the lines between editorial
policies and media reports – this has
been true even in The Economist –
one of the best samples of modern
journalism.
14. Covering the story of Syria from
other capitals, primarily Beirut, where
the press corps is highly dependent
on the services, suggestions, and even
instructions of the Hariri press office.
(The former CNN bureau chief now
works for the Hariri family).
15. Fear of challenging assumptions
and orientations of Western policies.
16. Lack of irony in reporting about
Qatari and Saudi support for
democratic struggle in Syria.
17. Covering up war crimes and other
misdeeds by the Free Syrian Army.
18. The reluctance to report on
foreign jihadi fighters in Syria until the
US government admitted their
presence.
19. The tendency to echo one another
in the coverage.
20. The lack of hesitation to report lies
and fabrications as long as they serve
the cause of Western governments
and as long as they hurt the cause of
the enemy Syrian regime.
21. Disregard for the political
background of some of the sudden
opponents of the Syrian regime.
Western media have yet to report on
these personalities who have been
apologists for the Syrian regime and
who pretended that they were
opponents of the regime when it
became politically and financially
convenient.
22. The pattern of reliance on
reporters who don't know Arabic and
don't know the region continues. The
New York Times continues to send
reporters who have covered American
politics or the police beat in NYC to
cover the Middle East region.
There is no accountability and it is
unlikely that someone is going to write
a book on the shortcomings and
failures of Western media. Western
media also marketed the Libya story
and they were never made
accountable for the lies they peddled
there.
powered by Readability
Western Media
The performance of the Western
media (American, British, French and
others) regarding the Syrian conflict
has been quite shameful. One does
not expect much from American
media. Ill-informed foreign editors
and correspondents and political
cowardice turn American media into
tools of US foreign policy.
This is especially true when it comes
to coverage of the Middle East, where
extra political courage and
uncharacteristic level of knowledge
and expertise are rather rare, even
though they are essential to
challenging US foreign policy. But
when it comes to Syria, British media
– including the liberal Guardian which
has often been brave in challenging
Western foreign policies and wars –
have been indistinguishable from
American media.
These media have failed their readers
on many levels. Their shortcomings
can be summarized as follows:
1. Resorting to methods of
documentations that are never
accepted when covering the Arab-
Israeli conflict; like the reliance on
accounts of people through Skype
and email whose names are not
obtained through a random process,
and the reliance on Saudi or Qatari
press media offices.
2. Hiding behind the cliché that "the
Syrian government does not allow
journalists in" to justify the various
anthologies of errors contained in
media reports. Many journalists have
either been allowed in or have
managed to sneak in, so the general
disclaimer used daily in the New York
Times is inaccurate and misleads
readers. Such a disclaimer is never
used against Israel, which imposes
rigid forms of censorship on reports
emanating from Israel, especially
when Israel is perpetrating its
regular war crimes and massacres.
3. The reliance on exile Syrian
opposition reports without any
scrutiny or healthy skepticism.
4. The assumption that Saudi-funded
or Qatari-funded media outfits don't
carry the agendas of those
governments.
5. Obscuring on purpose the heavy
role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the
Syrian exile opposition in order to
project a deceptive image of a secular
opposition.
6. The role that most Western
journalists and correspondents have
played on Twitter to cheerlead the
Free Syrian Army and the Syrian exile
opposition. The pretense of objectivity
is discarded.
7. The consistent reliance (especially in
the US press) on "experts" from the
Zionist Washington Institute for Near
East Policy as if it has no ideological
lobbying agenda. Reference to that
institute only informs the readers of its
political slant – to put it mildly.
8. The deliberate distortion and mis-
characterization of one side in the
conflict.
9. The insistence that Bashar al-Assad
has no power base in Syria – outside
of the Alawi community – when the
endurance shown by the regime
requires more than a resort to brute
force, which the regime is known for.
10. The gap between past coverage of
Syria which disregarded human rights
violations by the Assad regime during
its years of understanding with
Western governments and the sudden
discovery of the brutality of the
regime.
11. The obsession with Israeli
concerns: the media audaciously
covers the Israeli-originated story
about Syrian chemical weapons
without ever mentioning the vast
arsenal of Israeli WMDs.
12. Lack of verification of published
information.
13. Blurring the lines between editorial
policies and media reports – this has
been true even in The Economist –
one of the best samples of modern
journalism.
14. Covering the story of Syria from
other capitals, primarily Beirut, where
the press corps is highly dependent
on the services, suggestions, and even
instructions of the Hariri press office.
(The former CNN bureau chief now
works for the Hariri family).
15. Fear of challenging assumptions
and orientations of Western policies.
16. Lack of irony in reporting about
Qatari and Saudi support for
democratic struggle in Syria.
17. Covering up war crimes and other
misdeeds by the Free Syrian Army.
18. The reluctance to report on
foreign jihadi fighters in Syria until the
US government admitted their
presence.
19. The tendency to echo one another
in the coverage.
20. The lack of hesitation to report lies
and fabrications as long as they serve
the cause of Western governments
and as long as they hurt the cause of
the enemy Syrian regime.
21. Disregard for the political
background of some of the sudden
opponents of the Syrian regime.
Western media have yet to report on
these personalities who have been
apologists for the Syrian regime and
who pretended that they were
opponents of the regime when it
became politically and financially
convenient.
22. The pattern of reliance on
reporters who don't know Arabic and
don't know the region continues. The
New York Times continues to send
reporters who have covered American
politics or the police beat in NYC to
cover the Middle East region.
There is no accountability and it is
unlikely that someone is going to write
a book on the shortcomings and
failures of Western media. Western
media also marketed the Libya story
and they were never made
accountable for the lies they peddled
there.
powered by Readability
No comments:
Post a Comment