Quit Worrying about who to trust: trust no one, start verifying
Okay, one last round and then I just resign myself to the blanket dismissal by much of the forum of
half the alleged evidence that's under consideration by the rest of us.
There are obviously problems with "alternative" media sources, ranging from nationalist bias (that differs from one's own), sometimes direct or indirect control by a nation's foreign policy establishment (roundabout state-controlled media), limited sources and reliance on rumor, and even outright moonbattery in some case.
It's just sad how so many of those on the free side cannot recognize the same problems in their own media environment. I blame the sheer pervasiveness of the "Western" (corporate controlled) media for its common
confusion with reality (or rather objective journalism giving us the freest possible view of it).
Just in this thread, apparently missed by most, we've seen the signs why that's wrong. There's the Western reliance on "activists say" for a majority of their reporting. What are the journalistic credentials and ethics of these "Acitivists" writing half our news on Syria? The media can never verify, but can always support with "however, the regime's forces have been known (previously reported by activists) to..." and leave the reader feeling like the new report is just as true.
The reputable media at BBC failed to fact-check the analyst's error is calling dirt roads in a tree farm "tell-tale" "soviet-bloc"artillery tracks. They did not, however, fail to make a case for blaming the reviled regime. That's the one thing they do seem truly professional on here...
The clues are there for anyone to see. Just consider the use of "scare quotes" in relation to "terrorists." The Syrian government, based on its own knowledge of the victims, the timing, what their forces had and hadn't done, what those talking to them said happened, etc. decided right off that hardcore terrorists had slashed up those women and children of families who had stayed loyal and participated in the elections. Whenever the corporate media addresses this, it would be adequate to show it's not your own stance or a fact to say "the Syrian government blames terrorists." Instead, it's "the Syrian government blames "terrorists"." That shows active disbelief, and the reader gathers they're to distrust it too. Usually they do.
That's not journalism, it's politically-driven advocacy.
It's worse when they follow with explaining how "terrorists" is "their term for anti-government fighters" or even "demonstrators." Anyone who seriously believes Damascus argues that peaceful demonstrators rampaged through these lioyalist homes is daft. Anyone who implies it that way is dishonest. In the case in question, "terrorist" is code for, as they describe it, people who would
slash up whole families to send messages to other families about who they'd better side with. I think it's a fair term, and deserves no such derision. Clearly, it's the whole argument that's being laughed into obscurity.
Why? Hmmm... it does complicate the war narrative a wee-bit, but probably that's a coincidence, right?
This lady, for one example, had the misfortune of not being asked after by CNN's people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD0PA0BxNAQ
She has a whole different story from what the BBC reported, including a rebel takeover of the city during the rebel massacre, leaving many loyalists fleeing for their lives with her and others staying but living in fear. There are lots of details, things she saw, heard from others, possible rumor, possible fact (apparently a relative in the army giving her much of the details on fellow soldiers who were killed by the terrorists), things we could explore. But the NYT and Al Jazeera never reported on her or any of the others who have the same story. She spoke to Rusiian-ish news channel ANNA, and since the Russians might lie to support an ally (but never us to demonize an enemy),
she should be ignored.
Anyone want to specify what the manner of the lie here is? Is this lady a Russian/Abkhazian actor? A Syrian actor hired by the regime? A genuine witness who's had false words put in her mouth? Why is it professional and balanced for CNN to ignore this witness and the many others who tell a remarkably consistent story?
Warning: you'll have to watch it to have any worthwhile opinion.
