Bias and real news - Syria
"In the Middle East, media is understood to be a tool to advance the political interests of states, and of wealthy individuals who depend on the support of states."
Pretty much what you could say about the press in the USA, Europe, Latin America (OK, everywhere).
So, one wonders what sources of information are useful (i.e. contain truth) for news about the Middle East. I find it useful to read through information provided by sources on all sides with my own caveat that, "Syrian Press wants us to believe. . . Russian press wants us to believe. . . USA press wants us to believe. . . Northern Syrian (Rojava) press wants us to believe. . ." and so on down the line.
That can be helpful when the press "line" changes. For example, if Turkish press wants us to believe that the Northern Syrians (Rojavans) are controlled by evil Kurdish separatists and terrorists one day, and a week later, after a meeting with say, the Russians, they change to 'the Rojavans are protecting the rights of Turkmen," well that indicates whats the latest news as far is as what the Turkish government is thinking in negotiations. Not the truth, mind you, just the latest Turkish maneuver.
I look for first hand reports by independent journalists on the ground and quickly reject any who are spouting off unadulterated sewage. The western coverage of the "White Helmets" and "Bana Banana" are in this category. Although, once again there is the "Al-Nusra wants us to believe. . ." "Israeli Zionists wants us to believe. . . " Some independent journalists are truly independent and try to dig through the bullshit to try and reflect what they see on the ground and report without bias. I have my own biases and my own follow and friend lists, so I will leave you all to discover these journalists on your own.
OK with my own how to read the news ideology briefly outlined I offer two articles. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/01/northern-syria-kurds-r...
Here is one caveat (of many) for this articles from the commentary:
"dutchnational • 2 days ago. This is for a Turkish reporter indeed a well done report. Not covering all the basics, nothing about PYD aim for gender equality, nothing about Arab views and participation in Rojava, nothing about reconstruction efforts in retaken areas, nothing about KNC's overlord Barzani, nothing of the many other Kurdish parties cooperating with the PYD.
I was (and still am) ignorant of what the Al Monitor's ideological position is. I found this article from a Jewish source. This Jewish news site claims that Al Monitor has,
"an emphasis on translated material from pro-Hezbollah, pro-Assad media outlets as well as original content produced for Al-Monitor by writers who also work for pro-Hezbollah, pro-Assad media."
The article goes on to "prove" that Al Monitor is a haven for Hezbollah and pro-Assad journalists. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/134557/al-monitor-midd...
So, a Turkish source is now reporting that a pro-Hezbollah, pro-Assad source is more or less supporting Northern Syria (Rojava)? What does that show about "manuevering?"
As my bias is to support indigenous and minority liberation movements, I thought I would end this by directing folks to a large detailed number of Northern Syrian (Rojava) resources:
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/5pwbnw/rojava_sharing_s...
Source for images: http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/culture/745ca862-4635-460a-9c89-20bf8047fe... --- https://gazetesujin.com/en/2017/01/maybe-the-world-will/
I have certainly seen a lot of commentary on the Orwellian "false news", "alternative facts" and "censorship" of the corporate police state USA press. But, the USA corporate press isn't the only thing going on in the world. In fact, I never bother with the USA press except as a source as to what the corporate police state wants Americans to believe and a predictive tool. The USA alternative press is also a minefield. And, as we can see, the international press is also a tool to push agendas. So, to conclude I would suggest that we all be careful.
Comments
It's difficult to know what to believe
I find myself always checking any source now, googling the name of the reporter or checking the "about" page of the website, anything I can do to get some idea of the bias. Finding original sources, especially when the report concerns a document or the text of a speech or interview, is mandatory for me now, since people will give you a slanted interpretation of the original source material.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Conclusion? Difficult to suss out interpretations from
on-the-ground reporting, and not 'as told by' someone's cousin or neighbor? I assume we will hear of any bomb NOT in the ME. But maybe not.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Establishment media not doing on-the-ground reporting
The current evolving model is the development of third party reporting which gets passed onto the mass media audience. So want to find out what is happening in Syria, well consult the one-person Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which knows guys in Syria. So in the propaganda business, the mass establishment media picks the "correct" third party (like the White Helmets also).
Where there were efforts to do on-the-ground reporting, they seemed to be stopped. For example, Al Queda in Syria pretty much kills off all Western reporters and so the only voices out of their areas are theirs. Same in Ukraine. The regime and right wing has gone after reporters who have tried to go into the Donbass, so most of the reporting out of the Ukraine is reporters in Kiev sending out official government press releases as news.
@MrWebster
On the Ground Reporting from Syria and Yemen. These two women have been the only ones reporting on the scene. They broke the "white helmets" scam quite a few months ago. Go to their FB and click on "follow" - you'll get more info than you can handle... fn
Beeley Link
Barlett Link
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN
Won't publish my list :-)
Yes Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett. Both are not only great jornalists but kind and loving people.
I have maybe 75 journalists and 25 news agencies I follow. Not to mention some Reddit and Fakebook groups. I really don't want to publish my list though.
From the Light House.
You can message me with your best choices!!
I really don't have that many sources because at one time or another they have betrayed me...
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN
My list is private.
I have plenty who I don't agree with, or agree with on some things and not on others. I don't mind a good debate (often in private since I don't like stirring up shit on their pages)either. I don't take it personally as in feeling "betrayed" although I have certainly been "unfreinded", "blocked" and "flamed" often enough. The pain in the ass about that is that it creates an echo chamber in a vacuum (Hall of Mirrors).
From the Light House.
This is why censorship is the next step
Establishment powers for the lack of a better word are looking to squash alternative media to re-assert their control over messaging. The internet has allowed the proliferation of different news sources and analysis regardless of their quality, but they are still alternatives. As Jimmy Dore says, no wonder people are going to youtube to get their news as many do not trust the mass media outlets.
But a contradiction in some ways--while many say they do not trust the mass media, it is still effective. I was looking at polls that showed how Americans view Russia has gone down significantly just above North Korea. In the West, the EU is leading the way to not only censorship, but harsh penalties. If there are no official sanctions such as the EU is trying to do, we will continue to see tactics like cutting off access to financial institutions for donations and cutting off internet access.
Loonies are the ones stoking the alternative agenda
One big problem with alternative media is that right-wing loonie sites like are the most popular news alternatives:
Breitbart Rank in United States is 40
Infowars Rank in United States United States is 477
Daily Kos Rank in United States is 484
Christian Broadcast Channel Rank in United States is 4,236
American Daily Patriot Rank in United States is 28,704
David Duke Rank in United States United States is 64,219
The NY Times is 25th, not much higher than Breitbart. Breitbart et al, the USA favorite (I guess, maybe there are more popular loonies out there), are the ones stoking the agenda in alternative news. Check this line of bullshit, for example: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/29/trumps-immigration-pa... with millions of hits.
Left-wing alternative news sites are usually way down the list.
Counterpunch Rank in United States is 6,621
Global Research Rank in United States is 6,796
Black Agenda Report Rank in United States 50,347
Socialist Alternative Rank in United States 89,111
Caucus99 Rank in United States is 244,048
From the Light House.
Thanks for raising this topic, Alex Ocana.
I think it has become a matter of crucial importance. We are now subject to a proliferation of news and information sources from around the world, such as have never before been available. A veritable barrage of information and opinion assails us from a multitude of often contradictory perspectives, very few of them being completely reliable, and many of them conveying deliberate disinformation. We are confronted with the task of trying to sort it all out, in an effort to formulate a more or less accurate, or reasonably objective picture of "reality".
Unfortunately, our corporate-owned media have tended to exacerbate rather than ameliorate our difficulty, having themselves largely relinquished their responsibility to objective journalism in favor of offering an exclusive, and clearly biased perspective. This has resulted in one's benefit, least of all their own.
I think it's worth keeping in mind (for the sake of one's sanity) that no mediated reality is actually real. That all of it, whether it is credible or not, is ultimately a form of artifice, and thus by its very nature it is as close to fiction as it is to fact. Mediated reality is an extension of our experience, it is not actual physical experience -- so some degree of distortion is inevitable no matter what message is being conveyed.
native