Alwaght- The bias of news producers within mass media has seen journalists and editors select and report on stories, such as those related to the Syrian conflict, to fulfil political agendas. Behind the news room’s decisions are the swaying hands of Western policy-making and interests.
“The architects of our modern system of manufactured consent and official propaganda have long known the importance of the mass media in framing public opinion on any given event,” James Corbett and Prof Michel Chossudovsky state in an article entitled Media Disinformation and the Framing of the Syrian War.
The US and the UK have wasted no time or resources in distorting news pertaining to the war on Syria. Whether it’s a victory for the Syrian army and its allies or a heinous crime committed by terrorists, or even a humanitarian crisis, these governments have been keen to use mass media as part of the battle against Damascus, particularly in a bid to shape public opinion with regards to the conflict.
Many are the instances in which Western mainstream media have been used to falsify military and humanitarian developments in Syria. Intelligence reports have suggested that these states have formed a media operations room at the Guardian to monitor and dictate how to publish news about terrorist groups operating in Syria.
A pattern can indeed be detected in the Guardian’s approach to news on Syria: what is being reported, how much it is being reported, how it is being reported, and whose side it takes, are all aspects of this distortion campaign.
For example, when it came to the Syrian town of Madaya, the newspaper extensively covered the issue which was subject to many falsified images of allegedly starving civilians. The coverage which labelled the Syrian army’s siege of militants as a “starve or surrender” tactic aimed to vilify President Bashar Assad.
On the other hand, when the towns of Nubbul and Zahraa were under militant siege, developments were tackled differently.
In this sense, it subjectively directs its news policy toward misrepresenting the Syrian army while it avoids maligning terrorist groups by trying to appear objective.
Similarly, other Western-backed news outlets as well as Arab ones have engaged in such reporting.
“A September 2013 study from Pew Research found that in the wake of the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta in August, the coverage of the Syrian war debate on cable news networks from supposedly different viewpoints was almost identical. The study found that Al Jazeera America, CNN, and BBC America all framed their reports in substantially similar ways and relied on substantially similar sources, including by far their most common three sources: the White House, the congress, and the military,” the 2013 article reveals.
On a more balanced end of reporting is investigative journalist Seymour Hersh who has spoken of the US government’s manipulation of its intelligence over the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta.
Hersh says Hillary Clinton is responsible for the operation (2012) in which the CIA smuggled chemical weapons from Libya to Syria. This chemical attack by the terrorists was to be done to frame the Syrian government, a scenario that would later serve as a potential excuse for a US-led military attack against the sovereign nation. This is not what mainstream media has led the public to believe.
Yet there are more players in this media war. The Saudi regime and the Israeli regime have also played the media game against the Syrian government and its allies, particularly Hezbollah.
Arutz Sheva has echoed the Saudi Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper’s report in which it claimed that Hezbollah forces have used chemical weapons in militant-held areas with the backing of the Syrian government.
“It was proved that chemical (arms) were used in some neighborhoods of Aleppo and Ghouta, areas which have a clear Hezbollah presence,” the newspaper quoted a member of the so-called Free Army’s military council. This statement, however, was not proved because it is in itself a fabrication.
More recently, Nabil Antaki, a doctor from Aleppo expressed to reporter Vanessa Beeley the disgust of the disheartened people in the area at the media’s bias.
“With regards to recent events in Aleppo, I state very clearly that the mainstream media are lying by omission. Since the beginning of the war in Aleppo that began 4 years ago, they have consistently failed to report all the facts,” he says.
The doctor, who remained in Aleppo to help treat injured civilians, says the media is purposefully failing to cover attacks against civilians in government-controlled areas and are biased toward the militants.
“They only ever talk about the loss of life in the east of Aleppo which is entirely controlled by al-Nusra, a terrorist group affiliated with Al Qaeda. These are their “moderate rebels” a title that affords them an unmerited degree of respectability.”
Thus, it can be seen that foreign states which are seeking the downfall of the Syrian government, each for its own specific motives, are distorting the facts and presenting them to the world as news in outlets that bear renowned names. However, in light of the biased war on Syria, one must not rely on the name of the news outlet for authenticity but rather on its content and adherence to the truth.
