When America wages war or plans it, major media scoundrels cheerlead
in lockstep. Incendiary managed news follows. Truth and full
disclosure lose out.
As a result, readers and viewers are uninformed. Imperial Washington
gets free reign to keep ravaging the world one country at a time,
threatening humanity in the process.
Arguably, three major broadsheets are America's most influential -
The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. Each
has large followings, especially among opinion makers.
They also contradict London Guardian commentator Jonathan Steele's
January 17 article titled, "Most Syrians back President Assad, but
you you'd never know from western media," saying:
"When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns
into a propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed."
No wonder a recent YouGov Siraj Syria poll was ignored. Funded by
the Qatar Foundation, it was commissioned by The Doha Debates.
Notably, Qatar's monarchy one-sidedly opposes Assad. Its emir wants
foreign intervention. Yet it published "inconvenient" poll results
on its web sit.
It found most Arabs outside Syria want Assad to go, but not Syrians.
A majority 55% support him, "motivated by fear of civil war" or
greater violence and instability than now.
At the same time, half his supporters want near-term free elections.
Assad promised them. "But it is vital that he publishes (new)
election law as soon as possible, permits political parties and
makes a commitment to allow independent" observers to monitor
In late December, Guardian writer Simon Jenkins railed against
Britain's "ruinous decade of wars." He called UK interventionism
"not so much the white man's burden as his morbid thrill."
Rarely do Steele/Jenkins equivalents get major media op-ed space in
America. Nearly all commentators are hawkish, and television
On January 19, a New York Times editorial headlined, "Syria's Rising
UN and other reports say deaths now exceed 5,400. "Yet the
international community still has not mustered the tough pressure
that might force Mr. Assad to stop the killing, or Syria's Army and
business elite to toss him out."
Alleged death toll numbers come from anti-Assad elements. They
entirely lack credibility. Unmentioned were 2,000 or more Syrian
security force killings by Western-backed externally generated
insurgents. Inconvenient facts are ignored. They include
Washington's longstanding regime change in both Syria and Iran.
The Times accused Russia of "blocking the (Security Council) from
imposing any serious punishment," selling Assad arms, and "thwarting
democratic forces and their Western backers."
"On Monday, Russia proposed a shamefully weak resolution that put
equal blame" on both sides. "That means it is up to Arab League
ministers" to get tough and act. "Assad has made clear" his
unwillingness to "compromise....and he has made clear his contempt
for (League) efforts to broker peace."
Russia, China, BRIC allies, and other countries oppose outside
intervention. At issue is not replicating Libya. Washington and
Western allies want regime change, control, and delinking Syria from
Iran. They don't tolerate democracy abroad or at home.
Russia's proposal was even-handed, despite insurgent responsibility
for violence, not Assad who's responding as would any leader. He's
expressed willingness to meet popular demands several times. His
comments are ignored or discounted.
The Times want Arab League ministers to end their "failed monitoring
mission" and impose tougher measures on their own. At issue is
concern that mission head General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi
debunked Western propaganda and confirmed evidence of an externally
As a result, he's called unreliable. Efforts are made to discredit
him. Media scoundrels regurgitate official lies. Arab League
monitors and foreign ministers are meeting in Cairo this weekend.
A report on Syrian violence will follow. Perhaps al-Dabi will be
entirely shut out. Earlier he reported regime cooperation and lashed
out at monitor Anwar Malek's comments for quitting the team. He
called the mission a "farce," saying:
"What I saw was a humanitarian disaster. The regime is not just
committing one war crime, but a series of crimes against its people.
The snipers are everywhere shooting at civilians. People are being
kidnapped. Prisoners are being tortured and none were released."
In response, al-Dabi said "Malek did not leave the hotel for six
days and did not go out with the rest of the team into the field
giving the excuse that he was sick."
The Times sees "no easy solution," but wants more international
community pressure "to make clear to (Assad) and his cronies that
their time has run out."
Washington-backed insurgents cause violence and killings. Moreover,
international law prohibits interfering internally in other
countries' affairs. Washington and rogue NATO partners do it as
official policy. They and Times editorial writers spurn what real
democracies support and enforce.
A January 17 Washington Post editorial headlined, "Syria's carnage
puts Arab leaders on horns of a dilemma," saying:
Arab League interventionist calls show "a sense of desperation." In
fact, they indicate Western policy reflected through proxy comments.
"Assad predictably (continues) killing people at a shocking pace."
Arab League observers "fail(ed), and one of its own members called
(its mission) a farce."
So AL members have a choice "between humiliation and stronger
action....One way or another, the (League's) predicament will be
shared by NATO members," including Washington....Standing by while
the bloodshed goes on should not be one of the options."
Indeed not, but pointing fingers the wrong way won't end it.
Wall Street Journal contributor Fouad Ajami is a longtime Western
flack. Long ago he sold his credibility for a buck. He showed it in
a January 6 op-ed titled, "America and the Solitude of the Syrians,"
calling the Assad government a "veritable North Korea on the
Predictably, he accused Assad of "hunt(ing) down (his people) and
slaughter(ing) them like rats," adding there's "ice in this ruler's
veins. (He) mix(es) cunning and bluster. (The world's) two big
autocracies - Russia and China - have given this regime cover and
sustenance at the United Nations."
Earlier comments debunked Ajami's. They lay blame where it belongs.
Moreover, Russia, China and other nations want conflict resolution,
Media scoundrels like Ajami have other ideas, implied or explicitly
stated. Like other like-minded scoundrels, his credibility long ago
was lost. He regurgitates official policies, not truth and full
As a result, readers are left uninformed and misdirected. They
deserve better, especially on issues of war and peace.
However, major media writers, op-ed contributors, editorial writers,
TV reporters and pundits won't provide it.
Shut them out. Go online. Choose reliable sources to explain what
media scoundrels suppress and distort. Make them a regular habit to
learn what everyone needs to know - the truth.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to
cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the
Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network
Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.
All programs are archived for easy listening.