You know, I've seen a lot of claims that the presentation of the Syrian conflict by US media is inaccurate, and even accusations that it's an outright lie. What I haven't seen is any evidence of this. If someone could provide some links that would be great, but if not then you'll have to understand my skepticism.
The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End
- Thread starter ExposingAmericanLies
- Start date
Not only that, I've been noticing a distinct pattern in Russo-Shiite circles whereby anyone whose interests somehow coincide with America's on the issue, automatically becomes "US media propaganda". And yet if you read the things they were saying about Al Jazeera only a few years ago, it was a shining beacon of truth stabbing right into America's eyeballs.
Oh but you see with "free democratic elections" come appointed leaders who are also friends of that and this company. What proof will there be they will not be just pawns like in Iran after a legitimately elected democratic leader was elected and taken out by CIA and its in turn a tyrant was place in 70s? Yes Assad isn't too smart about leading his people, he does it strictly and sternly, but what are the alternatives? Terrorists roaming the country?
I would like to ask you a question, which non-Western media is giving coverage of situation in Syria, that I can compare their views to that of US/Western media? Al-Jazeera and RT are sufficient in your views? If yes, I will proceed.
I can't prove that won't happen. That Assad himself is a pawn of other non-democratic countries is already well known, but if you'd prefer a known a-hole who's in Russia and Iran's pockets and is doing his best to restore Lebanon to chaos, to the chance of America having another friend in the region, what can I say? I guess since all elections are vulnerable to external manipulation, no one should ever have them.
How about letting the candidates come forth freely without the fear of being experimented on to see how much electricity their testicles can take? Then we can vet them for ourselves and decide who's a terrorist and who isn't. We already know Assad and his cronies are cold-blooded psychopaths, why not see what else is out there? Hezbollah is in Syria now because if their point man goes down, so does their weapon supply, and what point is there to life if you can't take shots at Israeli children from time to time? They would have been in Syria even if the opposition were composed entirely of staunch atheists- in fact, they probably would have seen that as an even bigger threat than Al Qaeda.
If the Alawaites are afraid of getting their comeuppance after decades of privilege, brutality and subjugation, they could either split off and form an independent state on their own lands (they have a UN-backed right to self-determination) or seek international security guarantees for their protection.
@Youreyes --
Have you heard of this thing called "burden of proof", it's where the onus of demonstrating the validity of a claim lies on the person making it. You made a claim, I asked that you hold up your burden of proof. I'm not saying that you're wrong, or you're lying, I'm just skeptical is all. Surely you didn't make such a bold claim without any supporting evidence.
Have you heard of this thing called "burden of proof", it's where the onus of demonstrating the validity of a claim lies on the person making it. You made a claim, I asked that you hold up your burden of proof. I'm not saying that you're wrong, or you're lying, I'm just skeptical is all. Surely you didn't make such a bold claim without any supporting evidence.
What up? Haven't heard anything from you about Al Jazeera's glowing praise for El Presidente, so I decided to do some digging of my own and managed to find this...
[video=youtube;xnMI64kXQA8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnMI64kXQA8[/video]
.
Who owns Al Jazeera now, which country? Qatar.
Is Qatar part of the "friends" league of Arab nations? Yes, it is.
What do the "friends" want to do with Syria? Put it into chaos. Exactly.
The media is pretty much owned by Westerners and their business pawns.
Is Qatar part of the "friends" league of Arab nations? Yes, it is.
What do the "friends" want to do with Syria? Put it into chaos. Exactly.
The media is pretty much owned by Westerners and their business pawns.
Ok, well you're the one who said Al Jazeera's narrative was in fundamental contradiction to the US narrative and would help prove that the rebellion is a Western conspiracy. So are you now retracting that claim? Qatar owns Al Jazeera now, who owned it two weeks ago when you were planning to parade it?
This seems to be a fundamental problem as I see it with the pro-Assad crowd, that the reliability of a media source on the issue depends on the extent to which that media source agrees with their existing views, on this and on other issues. As just one example of a phenomenon I've personally noticed, I went browsing on shiachat.net recently just to get a sense of how Shiite communities might be viewing this conflict, and I saw an awful lot of reliability judgements based on whether the media source had nice or nasty things to say about Shiites with regards to other issues, rather than the quality and factual consistency of the actual reporting itself. The nasty things many of them were saying about Palestinians were especially shocking to me, seeing as how the Palestinian dilemma had become a practical raison d'etre for Assad and his allies in the first place. Personally, I can only explain it all away as a remnant of a very old-fashioned tribal mentality; Hezbollah good, Hariri bad. Assad good, rebels bad. Bahrain good, Saudis bad. Iran good, Kurds bad. There's a consistent pattern here but it's not consistent justice.
Now as to your side of the story- what makes RT so reliable in your eyes besides the fact that it's run out of a country that thinks it's still in the Cold War? Why can't we settle this by letting all the international media and UN observers into Syria to account for the conflict directly, thereby bypassing the concerns about filtered Western propaganda BS? I say let Al Jazeera, Al Manar, RT, Xinhua, the New York Times, the Khaleej Times, the Flat Earth Society and anyone else who gives a f*ck go see the conflict for themselves and take their own pics and video. What say you? If you truly believe Assad is such a popular guy, why wouldn't you want the world to come see it directly? You complain about how the US controls and manipulates info, yet you're the one making all the excuses as to why that info should be restricted in the first place.
Just thought I'd check in with the Bashar Assad "Shiitey Little Tyrants" fan club to see how everyone's doing. Oh, what's that? Times in Syria are so great, you're having a gas? Yes, so I've heard... Sounds like quite the party, I hope you saved a seat for the US and all the late arrivals, they should be showing up any minute now. 
Hey youreyes;
Curious as to your post here. Al Jazeera is owned by a private network and while there's mixed reviews relating to possible bias in their reporting, it actually has earned a solid reputation for being unbiased and even is thought to rival the networks from the West, in terms of thorough news coverage. (I'm aware of who owns Al Jazeera, and all the ''implications'' that brings with it) I'm assuming from your post here, that you disbelieve that...can you elaborate?
Last edited:
- " Al Jazeera is owned by a private network... mixed reviews relating to possible bias in their reportings...has earned a solid reputation for being unbiased and even is thought to rival the networks from the West..."
wegs, have you looked into who actually "owns" the "networks from the West"? Can you honestly not see that the "networks from the West" are, indeed, heavily biased?
Smoke and Mirrors. A good "Magician" will be able to keep your "eyes glued" to the "hand" that is "holding" the "bright, shiny, new, awe-inspiring trick" - while using the "other hand" to execute the underlying mechanics that allows him to "fool" you into "believing...".
The real truth exists. The smoke and mirrors exist - talking heads...mouthpieces...bullet points...cries of conspiracy theorist...mis-information...dis-information...propaganda - these are a few of the "smoke and mirrors" that the "owners" use to disseminate the "truth" that they prefer we believe...
wegs, have you looked into who actually "owns" the "networks from the West"? Can you honestly not see that the "networks from the West" are, indeed, heavily biased?
Smoke and Mirrors. A good "Magician" will be able to keep your "eyes glued" to the "hand" that is "holding" the "bright, shiny, new, awe-inspiring trick" - while using the "other hand" to execute the underlying mechanics that allows him to "fool" you into "believing...".
The real truth exists. The smoke and mirrors exist - talking heads...mouthpieces...bullet points...cries of conspiracy theorist...mis-information...dis-information...propaganda - these are a few of the "smoke and mirrors" that the "owners" use to disseminate the "truth" that they prefer we believe...
Last edited:
I missed this post when I skimmed through, earlier.
Is this your proof then as to your assertions that Al Jazeera is a biased news source?
I think it's safe to assume that it is hard to find any network, globally, that offers 100% unbiased broadcasts.
That said, it's a big leap to say that this network is little more than a pawn of the west.
I will say however, that the west's media has caused people to believe Syria as having a tyrannical, uncooperative government. Depending who you talk to, might depend on the answer. Here's a very interesting link that speaks to some of this...
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/05/06/239800/syria-road-normalcy-tackling-unrest/
Particular sobering is this from the article...what is everyone's thoughts to this:
In an interview with Press TV, Paul Sheldon Foote, professor at the California State University, Irvine said: "I think it’s time that someone started telling the truth about it. It’s very obvious that America, Israel and some Arab countries are behind this terrorism in Syria. A big lie for a long time, that America’s been at war with terrorism while they continually support terrorism in the region. It’s outrageous what they’re doing. Not only that, they’ve used that as an excuse in America for taking away our freedoms. It’s time for the people in the West to wake up to what’s really happening. It affects not only Syria but it affects all of us in the West too.”
Is this true or false? How to know?
Try looking around PressTV's website for a single article that contradicts Iranian government policy (and I'm not talking about minor cosmetic differences for the sake of appearing independent, like "the Ayatollah isn't being crazy enough and bombing enough Jews/women with visible hair"). That should help you figure things out pretty quickly.
Okay, fair enough. Thanks.
Then, what network/publication to trust, if they all offer to varying degrees, some form of bias?
I'm not an avid consumer of news as I once was, because of the blatant bias that prevails with the more popular news networks, and even some of their fringe competitors. So as you state here, the credibility factor should come into question, when you see the ties connected with various news organizations. Which is a totally fair statement. But, news organizations like all 'businesses,' have a desire to stay afloat, to profit. A smaller pub/network might start off with an unbiased, wholesome mission, and then in order to grow, they may accept the 'help' from entities with ulterior motives. For now, I want to believe that Al Jazeera is providing a more realistic view of the news, compared to its competitors...we shall see what the future brings.
Anyway, putting this here; it's an interesting read about the Al Jazeera 'story,' and how it's unfolding.
You all be the judge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/b...ber-look-at-the-news.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0