The Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful
episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage
in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.
For
three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a
wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: “Don’t send
your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you
will get the coffin.” Then they destroyed factories, hoping that
unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become
fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.
This
month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian
army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last
week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon
be restored. The militants’ hold on the city could be ending.
Militants,
true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by
Russian and Syrian Army forces. “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate
rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided
rockets and gas jars,” one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The
Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, “The Syrian Arab Army, which is
led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along
with their allies, who are fighting ISIS — so you want to weaken the
only system that is fighting ISIS?”
This does not fit
with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is
reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news
reports suggest that Aleppo has been a “liberated zone” for three years
but is now being pulled back into misery.
ns
Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight
the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed
to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds,
and the “moderate opposition” will win.
This is
convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it.
We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals,
or their tactics.
Much blame for this lies with our media.
Under
intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and
broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign
correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from
reporters based in Washington.
In that environment,
access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms.
Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State
Department, the White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on
that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the
story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for
news about Syria.
Astonishingly brave correspondents
in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract
Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these
reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their
reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many
consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting
from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.
Washington-based
reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up
of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda
franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in
fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS.
Turkey has for
years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join
terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on
Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded
that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds,
Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is
described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who
are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.
Inevitably,
this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential
campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed
that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I
negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true.
In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and
Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan
because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at
least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to
challenge her.
Politicians may be forgiven for
distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for
promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism,
however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its
inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.
Americans
are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in
other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria,
however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous,
because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the
death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many
Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story.
In
Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish,
Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly
distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn
more Syrians to suffering and death.
This is convoluted
nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have
almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their
tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.
Under
intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and
broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign
correspondents.
Much important news about the world now comes from
reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and
credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms.
Reporters
who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the
White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on that soiled
carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form
of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.
Washington-based
reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up
of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda
franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in
fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS.
Turkey has for
years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join
terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on
Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded
that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds,
Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is
described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who
are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.
Inevitably,
this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential
campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed
that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I
negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true.
In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and
Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan
because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at
least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to
challenge her.
Politicians may be forgiven for
distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for
promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism,
however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its
inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.
Americans
are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in
other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria,
however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous,
because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the
death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many
Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story.
In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish,
Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly
distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn
more Syrians to suffering and death
Read more: The media are misleading the public on Syria - Boston Globe - by Stephen Kinzer
