After the recent revelation that almost every major news site has been promoting unverified video and eye-witness testimony originating in some of the most extreme, violent and debauched terrorist elements currently operating in Syria, we have to ask – is there any longer even a minimum of verification or investigative process required before news agencies and publications endorse a breaking story?
in a conflict that has already claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people, the media wants us to believe the “horror generated” by the above vid of some people looking quite well but dusty and bloodstained will “echo the anguished global response” to images of drowned Aylan Kurdi and, presumably, galvanise us all into supporting a NATO intervention to save the terrorists in eastern Aleppo.
by Bryan Hemming On February 12th this year Dan Froomkin, the influential Washington Editor of the Intercept, used an article slamming Hillary Clinton’s slavish adherence the doctrines of Henry Kissinger to solicit likely names for a ‘dream foreign policy team’. Taking up the challenge, I dashed off an email expressing grave doubts as to whether there were anywhere near enough politicians in the U.S. political establishment possessing sufficient knowledge of foreign affairs to form a whole team. Having said that, I do believe there is one politician eminently qualified to lead a dream foreign policy team, and she might even get to do it. “I cannot remain neutral any longer; the stakes are too high.” Using those words Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard resigned from her post as vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee on February 28th to endorse the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. Announcing her resignation on NBC’s Meet the Press she cited her main reason as being that members of the committee were proscribed from expressing their opinions in the primaries. And Gabbard has plenty of opinions, particularly on the abysmal failure of …
Reading the New York Times, Washington Post, and other allegedly liberal major media outlets, one could be forgiven for thinking that the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is tit-for-tat, that it is the product of an ongoing cause-effect-countereffect relationship. That is precisely how the conflict is portrayed in nearly all so-called ‘respectable’ papers.