Eva Bartlett on Syria: Responding to Buzzfeed

Hi, Bart,
Your so called three arguments against Bartlett’s reporting of her on-the-ground observations are to me rather odd.
Essentially, they can be boiled down to this: she appears to be biased in favor of the military intervention of one side to this conflict, as it happens, that of, in the all so neutral parlance of the mainstream corporate media, the Assad “regime.” Consequently, whatever claims she may be making, they are tainted by this bias, and to the degree that they are, depart from a neutral and what by definition would be a more objective assessment of the incredibly complicated reality in Syria. In other words, if we cut through the obfuscatory buzz-phrase of “journalistic neutrality,” your objection to Eva’s reporting is that she is not being sufficiently “objective,” neutral, dispassionate or disinterested, and her language consequently embodies a propagandistic purpose, namely to sway her reader’s allegiance in favor of the Assad “regime” and its allies.
As you yourself underscore, however, in your somewhat condescending reply to John, “objectivity,” especially of the “neutral” or “pure” kind, is an unachievable standpoint for humans, burdened as they always are by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc.
So your “journalistic neutrality,” of which you make such a great deal, since it is the only criterion you adduce by which to assess and dismiss Eva’s work, is a vacuous criterion because, as on your very own admission, a “neutral” or “pure” or “objective” standpoint on the world is simply a human impossibility.
In other words, it would appear that your assumptions about the role of “neutrality” in judgement, journalistic or otherwise, are somewhat circular, different points on your circle of assumptions being invoked or ignored at your selective convenience, to object to anything that on the face of it strikes you as “extraordinary,” which is only another buzzword for “something I hadn’t considered before because it stands outside of the orthodoxy in which my opinion on the matter is firmly rooted.”
Since you can always argue that a person isn’t being sufficiently neutral about complex, multifaceted events, invoking your all-purpose “journalistic neutrality” is all you ever need to do to discredit their journalistic reports or testimonies. But since your criterion is an all-purpose rhetorical and rarefied academic objection of the kind that can’t be countered, it actually fails as a criterion by which to judge any testimony whatsoever.
But things are actually quite different than the way in which you frame them with your criterion of “journalistic neutrality,” Bart. Within limits, you can indeed very “objectively” determine whether something is or is not the case, and that “truth” may coincidentally happen to vindicate or admittedly stand as cover for someone’s political and admittedly venal purposes.
John has provided you with a list of statements that in “fact” do have an “objective” dimension and that can be verified to be true or false. And you are quite right: the burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. But the burden of following up the links which will disclose to you the truth or falsehood of the claims being made rests upon the person who finds the claims “extraordinary” and therefore doubts them.
You ask for evidence? Did Eva not provide you with links to follow up? Did you even bother to follow them up before invoking your accusation of impartiality? And what of her impartiality if what she claims is true? Did you explore the treasure trove of information at her website? What about that of Vanessa Beeley? Did you bother to look at the ‘evidence’ already, so to speak, placed in front of you? Or do you want us to do your research for you? You know, we can’t read for you, Bart. Did you notice people leaving links behind in the comments? You can’t both ask for evidence and then refuse to look at it, and then expect us to believe that you have ‘an open mind,’ Bart.
Let me make a claim: the White Helmets are a front serving two functions. On the one hand, it is a propaganda operation to demonize Assad and all that he represents; and on the other hand, it is a money laundering operation designed to funnel funds to the mercenaries in Syria. What do I base myself on? Well, among many others, the research summed up in a piece by Daniel Margrain, titled Who are the White Helmets & what is their role in Syria? I refer to this piece because not only is it well referenced, but because it nicely sums up in a succinct essay what I would argue is the essence of the “White Helmet fraud” as I myself have established to my satisfaction by all of the sifting I myself have done on this issue over these last few years.
You want proof, well you are going to have to get off your ass and go and read where we ourselves have read. And if those sources are lying to us, why don’t you show us where and in what respects they are lying. Show me where Margrain is wrong in the claims of “facts” he makes, and if not Margrain himself, then his sources. You see, I claim Margrain is telling the truth. If you counter my claim, you also have a burden of proof, eh, namely to prove the falsehood of Margrain’s claims.
Finally, I can’t let this go by without remarking on it:

“The main part of Bartletts (sic) activism has taken place around another complicated conflict: Israel/Palestine. Bartlett repeatedly and explicitely (sic) supports the Palestinian side, and is a supporter of Hezbollah. (Again and again, I am not judging anything here, just researching facts)”

Well, you are not judging, but you are. You are judging as well as highlighting Bartlett’s bias. In this instance, in favor of Hezbollah, a party to the conflict in Syria, and you clearly see an allegiance by proxy between Hezbollah and Bartlett because of her support for the Palestinian cause.
But here is the source of my irritation as pertains to that ‘argument’ of yours and your own very flagrant biases: another complicated conflict: Israel/Palestine.
Really? How complicated is it, really? It’s about land. It’s about a now established state permitting and actively engaging in the dispossession of a people who had long been living in Palestine before the beginning of the European Zionist inspired expropriation of the Palestinians. Or is it something else, Bart? You know on whom the burden of proof rests, here. For I find your claim simply breathtaking, simply and utterly “extraordinary.”

Dear Bart,
Looking at your initial post, so much of what you say looks like putting the cart before the horse. I think you are making many assumptions (of which you might not be aware) about the nature of journalism, what passes for “objectivity” and what role that should (or should not play) in journalism and being a journalist, and what journalists should do.
I should think very few people become journalists without having a clear objective about what they want to achieve through journalism. This means that they enter the journalist profession with clear tendencies or biases if you like. A truly “neutral” journalist is a very rare creature and might just be a figment of the imagination. “Objectivity” is more likely to be a concept the Western MSM promotes as a cover for its own prejudices and agendas.
You say Bartlett describes the rebels as terrorists and uses the word “liberation” for Assad’s military actions. Your judgement on what Bartlett says might say more about your biases and what you believe “neutral language” should be than about Bartlett’s prejudices. Unless you are on the ground in Syria yourself, have spoken to Syrian people in Aleppo who have first-hand experience of the war, how can you say that Bartlett’s choice of vocabulary is not neutral or is biased?
You say Bartlett has an affinity with Hezbollah. What does that mean? Simply supporting Hezbollah’s actions is not the same as agreeing with Hezbollah’s aims and agenda (which have changed quite a lot since the 1980s). What do you know of Hezbollah, do you know who is in charge of Hezbollah and how that organisation developed? And what leads you to say that Bartlett’s support for Palestine is linked to her support (if that exists) for Hezbollah? Does everyone who supports Palestine also support Hezbollah? I think such an assumption about Bartlett’s opinions is baseless and again further evidence of bias on your part.
You say Bartlett has an affinity with Russian media on the basis that her articles have been published by Russian-based or supported media. That in itself does not imply affinity: it might simply mean that her articles were rejected by other media (because they did not follow a preconceived narrative about Syria) and the only media that would agree to publish her articles happen to be Russian-based media.
The tone of your comment is very disturbing and condescending as well. I think you have some way to go before you can convince us here that you are not trolling.

Yup. She is both humble and humbling. Simply extraordinary. Keep safe, Eva. We need you.