Navigating War: Has the War in Syria Also Destroyed Journalism?
Published on
Thursday, December 15, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Navigating War: Has the War in Syria Also Destroyed Journalism?
by
Ramzy Baroud
With both sides of the Syrian war having no respect for media or
journalists, writes Baroud, "no impartial journalist is allowed to carry out
his or her work in accordance with the minimum standards of reporting."
(Photo: Al-Jazeera)
When a veteran war reporter like Robert Fisk constructs his argument
regarding the siege of Aleppo based on 'watching' video footage, then one
can truly comprehend the near impossibility of adequate media coverage on
the war in Syria.
In a recent article in the British Independent, Fisk reflects on the siege,
uprising and atrocious Nazi massacres in Warsaw, Poland in 1944. The
terribly high cost of that war leads him to reject the French assertion that
the current siege in Aleppo is the 'worst massacre since World War Two.'
"Why do we not see the defending fighters, as we do on the Warsaw films? Why
are we not told about their political allegiance, as we most assuredly are
on the Warsaw footage? Why do we not see 'rebel' military hardware-as well
as civilian targets-being hit by artillery and air attack as we do on the
Polish newsreels?," he asks, further demonstrating what he perceives to be
the flaw of such a comparison.
"While the coverage of war in the past has given rise to many daring
journalists... the war in Syria is destroying journalistic integrity and,
with it, our readers' ability to decipher one of the most convoluted
conflicts of the modern era."
Not that Fisk doubts that pictures of the dead and wounded children in
eastern Aleppo are real; his argument is largely against the one-sidedness
of the coverage, of demonizing one party, while sparing another.
Without reserve, I always find comparing massacres-to find out which is
worse-tasteless, if not inhumane. What is the point in this, aside from
mitigating the effect of a terrible tragedy, by comparing it to a
hypothetically much greater tragedy? Or, as the French have done, perhaps
exaggerating the human toll to create the type of fear that often leads to
reckless political and military action?
The French and other NATO countries have used this tactic repeatedly in the
past. In fact, this is how the war on Libya was concocted, purportedly to
stave off the imminent Tripoli 'genocide' and Benghazi 'bloodbath.' The
Americans used it in Iraq, successfully. The Israelis have perfected it in
Gaza.
In fact, the United States' intervention in Iraq was always tied to some
sort of imagined global threat that, unsurprisingly, was never proven.
Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was so eager to take part in the
conquest of Iraq in 2003 that he contrived intelligence alleging that Iraq,
under Saddam Hussein, was able to deploy weapons of mass destruction within
45 minutes from the moment such an order was given.
The US went even further: it was only recently revealed that the US had
hired a London-based firm, Bell Pottinger, to create fake al-Qaeda videos
and news reports that were designed to appear as if written by legitimate
Arabic media.
The propaganda videos were 'personally approved' by the commander of the
US-led coalition forces in Iraq at the time, General David Petraeus, Salon
and others reported.
We still do not know the specific content of many of these videos and to
what extent such material, which cost US tax payers $540 million dollars,
influenced events on the ground and our understanding of these events.
Considering the high financial cost and the fact that the company worked
directly from inside Baghdad's 'Camp Victory', 'side-by-side' with
high-ranking US officials, one can only imagine the degree of deceit
imparted upon innocent viewers and readers for years.
Compounded with the fact that the whole reason behind the war was a lie, the
then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, had no intention of ever
informing reporters of what was really transpiring on the ground, and that
countless reporters agreed to be 'embedded' with US-British forces, thus
further contributing to the one-sided narrative. One is left to wonder if
any truth ever emerged from Iraq.
Then, again, we know that hundreds of thousands have died in that
catastrophic military adventure, that Iraq is not better off, and that
thousands more are still being killed because this is what happens when
countries are invaded, destabilized, hurriedly reassembled and then left to
lick their wounds, alone.
The chaotic violence and sectarianism in Iraq are the direct outcome of the
US invasion and occupation, which were constructed on official lies and
dishonest media reporting.
Is it too much to ask, then, that we learn from those dreadful mistakes, to
understand that when all is said and done, nothing will remain but mass
graves and grieving nations?
As for the lies that enable wars, and allow the various sides to clinch on
their straw arguments of selected morality, few ever have the intellectual
courage to take responsibility when they are proven wrong. We simply move
on, uncaring for the victims of our intellectual squabbles.
"The extreme bias shown in foreign media coverage of similar events in Iraq
and Syria will be a rewarding subject for PhD students looking at the uses
and abuses of propaganda down the ages," wrote war reporter, Patrick
Cockburn.
He is right, of course, but as soon as his report on media bias was
published, he was attacked and dismissed by both sides on social media. From
their perspective, a proper position would be for him to completely adopt
the version of events as seen by one side, and totally ignore the other.
Yet, with both sides of the war having no respect for media or
journalists-the list of journalists killed in Syria keeps on growing-no
impartial journalist is allowed to carry out his or her work in accordance
with the minimum standards of reporting.
Thus, the 'truth' can only be gleaned based on deductive reasoning-as many
of us have successfully done, reporting on Iraq and Palestine.
Of course, there will always been the self-tailored
activist-journalist-propagandist variety who will continue to cheer for
death and destruction in the name of whatever ideology they choose to
follow. They abide by no reasoning, but their own convenient logic - that
which is only capable of demonizing their enemies and lionizing their
friends.
Unfortunately, these media trolls are the ones shaping the debate on much of
what is happening in the Middle East today.
While the coverage of war in the past has given rise to many daring
journalists-Seymour Hersh in Vietnam, Tariq Ayyoub in Iraq, photo-journalist
Zoriah Miller, and hundreds more-the war in Syria is destroying journalistic
integrity and, with it, our readers' ability to decipher one of the most
convoluted conflicts of the modern era.
In Syria, as in Iraq and other warring regions in the Middle East, the
'truth' is not shaped by facts, but opinions, themselves fashioned by blind
allegiances, not truly humanistic principles or even simple common sense.
"Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul
in this world-and never will," wrote Mark Twain many years ago.
It was true then, as it is true in the Middle East today.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
Ramzy Baroud
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of
PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers,
journals and anthologies around the world. His is the author of The Second
Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press,
London). His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold
Story (Pluto Press, London).
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Thursday, December 15, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. #NotNormal
. #NoDAPL
. Bernie Sanders
Navigating War: Has the War in Syria Also Destroyed Journalism?
Published on
Thursday, December 15, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Navigating War: Has the War in Syria Also Destroyed Journalism?
by
Ramzy Baroud
. 3 Comments
.
. With both sides of the Syrian war having no respect for media or
journalists, writes Baroud, "no impartial journalist is allowed to carry out
his or her work in accordance with the minimum standards of reporting."
(Photo: Al-Jazeera)
. When a veteran war reporter like Robert Fisk constructs his argument
regarding the siege of Aleppo based on 'watching' video footage, then one
can truly comprehend the near impossibility of adequate media coverage on
the war in Syria.
. In a recent article in the British Independent, Fisk reflects on the
siege, uprising and atrocious Nazi massacres in Warsaw, Poland in 1944. The
terribly high cost of that war leads him to reject the French assertion that
the current siege in Aleppo is the 'worst massacre since World War Two.'
. "Why do we not see the defending fighters, as we do on the Warsaw
films? Why are we not told about their political allegiance, as we most
assuredly are on the Warsaw footage? Why do we not see 'rebel' military
hardware-as well as civilian targets-being hit by artillery and air attack
as we do on the Polish newsreels?," he asks, further demonstrating what he
perceives to be the flaw of such a comparison.
. "While the coverage of war in the past has given rise to many daring
journalists... the war in Syria is destroying journalistic integrity and,
with it, our readers' ability to decipher one of the most convoluted
conflicts of the modern era."
Not that Fisk doubts that pictures of the dead and wounded children in
eastern Aleppo are real; his argument is largely against the one-sidedness
of the coverage, of demonizing one party, while sparing another.
Without reserve, I always find comparing massacres-to find out which is
worse-tasteless, if not inhumane. What is the point in this, aside from
mitigating the effect of a terrible tragedy, by comparing it to a
hypothetically much greater tragedy? Or, as the French have done, perhaps
exaggerating the human toll to create the type of fear that often leads to
reckless political and military action?
The French and other NATO countries have used this tactic repeatedly in the
past. In fact, this is how the war on Libya was concocted, purportedly to
stave off the imminent Tripoli 'genocide' and Benghazi 'bloodbath.' The
Americans used it in Iraq, successfully. The Israelis have perfected it in
Gaza.
In fact, the United States' intervention in Iraq was always tied to some
sort of imagined global threat that, unsurprisingly, was never proven.
Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was so eager to take part in the
conquest of Iraq in 2003 that he contrived intelligence alleging that Iraq,
under Saddam Hussein, was able to deploy weapons of mass destruction within
45 minutes from the moment such an order was given.
The US went even further: it was only recently revealed that the US had
hired a London-based firm, Bell Pottinger, to create fake al-Qaeda videos
and news reports that were designed to appear as if written by legitimate
Arabic media.
The propaganda videos were 'personally approved' by the commander of the
US-led coalition forces in Iraq at the time, General David Petraeus, Salon
and others reported.
We still do not know the specific content of many of these videos and to
what extent such material, which cost US tax payers $540 million dollars,
influenced events on the ground and our understanding of these events.
Considering the high financial cost and the fact that the company worked
directly from inside Baghdad's 'Camp Victory', 'side-by-side' with
high-ranking US officials, one can only imagine the degree of deceit
imparted upon innocent viewers and readers for years.
Compounded with the fact that the whole reason behind the war was a lie, the
then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, had no intention of ever
informing reporters of what was really transpiring on the ground, and that
countless reporters agreed to be 'embedded' with US-British forces, thus
further contributing to the one-sided narrative. One is left to wonder if
any truth ever emerged from Iraq.
Then, again, we know that hundreds of thousands have died in that
catastrophic military adventure, that Iraq is not better off, and that
thousands more are still being killed because this is what happens when
countries are invaded, destabilized, hurriedly reassembled and then left to
lick their wounds, alone.
The chaotic violence and sectarianism in Iraq are the direct outcome of the
US invasion and occupation, which were constructed on official lies and
dishonest media reporting.
Is it too much to ask, then, that we learn from those dreadful mistakes, to
understand that when all is said and done, nothing will remain but mass
graves and grieving nations?
As for the lies that enable wars, and allow the various sides to clinch on
their straw arguments of selected morality, few ever have the intellectual
courage to take responsibility when they are proven wrong. We simply move
on, uncaring for the victims of our intellectual squabbles.
"The extreme bias shown in foreign media coverage of similar events in Iraq
and Syria will be a rewarding subject for PhD students looking at the uses
and abuses of propaganda down the ages," wrote war reporter, Patrick
Cockburn.
He is right, of course, but as soon as his report on media bias was
published, he was attacked and dismissed by both sides on social media. From
their perspective, a proper position would be for him to completely adopt
the version of events as seen by one side, and totally ignore the other.
Yet, with both sides of the war having no respect for media or
journalists-the list of journalists killed in Syria keeps on growing-no
impartial journalist is allowed to carry out his or her work in accordance
with the minimum standards of reporting.
Thus, the 'truth' can only be gleaned based on deductive reasoning-as many
of us have successfully done, reporting on Iraq and Palestine.
Of course, there will always been the self-tailored
activist-journalist-propagandist variety who will continue to cheer for
death and destruction in the name of whatever ideology they choose to
follow. They abide by no reasoning, but their own convenient logic - that
which is only capable of demonizing their enemies and lionizing their
friends.
Unfortunately, these media trolls are the ones shaping the debate on much of
what is happening in the Middle East today.
While the coverage of war in the past has given rise to many daring
journalists-Seymour Hersh in Vietnam, Tariq Ayyoub in Iraq, photo-journalist
Zoriah Miller, and hundreds more-the war in Syria is destroying journalistic
integrity and, with it, our readers' ability to decipher one of the most
convoluted conflicts of the modern era.
In Syria, as in Iraq and other warring regions in the Middle East, the
'truth' is not shaped by facts, but opinions, themselves fashioned by blind
allegiances, not truly humanistic principles or even simple common sense.
"Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul
in this world-and never will," wrote Mark Twain many years ago.
It was true then, as it is true in the Middle East today.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
/author/ramzy-baroud
/author/ramzy-baroud/author/ramzy-baroud
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of
PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers,
journals and anthologies around the world. His is the author of The Second
Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press,
London). His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold
Story (Pluto Press, London).
