"This is
not a religious documentary, but the disaster it outlines is almost biblical in
its scope. The four horsemen of the title refers to US-led financial
wrongdoings, escalating violence, deplorable conditions of poverty, and looming
environmental catastrophe. The film contends that the driving force behind this
doomsday plot is the new morality in America: money. The country has gone far
afield from a true free market system where wealth is shared and benefits all.
Capitalism may be on the brink of extinction. Today, in the midst of massive
deregulation and corporate greed, the country's financial institutions are
operating only in their own self-interests. Politicians are owned by corporations, and the wars they wage are merely vehicles to drive
profits."
The ravaged battleground that replaced the
once cosmopolitan city of Aleppo is at the centre of a major war of information
and disinformation.
Biased journalism: a look at the media
coverage of Aleppo
Over
the past weeks Aleppo has been worldwide news after the Syrian Army
regained control of the city, home to thousands of besieged civilians. The
media coverage of this case has been quite diverse, so it deserves particular
attention, avoiding excessive reliance on the mainstream Western media.
A
quick anthology of Western reporting from Aleppo: The Guardian reported
atrocities perpetrated by Assad forces within “moments” of retaking the city.
CNNreported that
“the regime and Russia — its most powerful ally — decimated neighbourhoods with
airstrikes, leaving scorched earth where a bustling metropolis once stood”. The
American news channel further stated that “those who remain in the city fear
reprisals from Assad forces”.
While
the West’s big hitters seem to be flooding the news with atrocities committed
in Aleppo, the media outlet RT, formerly called Russia Today, has been sharing videos and
images of Syrians celebrating on the streets after reporting
that the Syrian army had retaken Eastern Aleppo.
Admittedly,
I have not found any international news channel outside Russia reporting that
civilians were returning to their normal lives in liberated and ruined Eastern
Aleppo. It is, of course, unsurprising that RT should broadcast expressions of
support by the Syrian people for Bashar al-Assad; the question here is why
the Western mainstream media, which claim to provide objective reporting, chose
to sweep out such politically significant social behaviour, even if it
characterises only part of the Syrian population.
How
can the two sides of the international media broadcast such different images
from one reality on the ground?
Through
“enemy” eyes
Ilya
Yabolok authored the academic article Conspiracy Theories as a
Russian Public Diplomacy Tool: The Case of Russia Today (RT) where he defends
the claim that RT’s news agenda is aimed at counterbalancing the “information
monopoly” of Western media. He explains that the main goal of its journalists
is to “find the news that would be ignored by the so-called ‘mainstream media’
and bring it to viewers’ attention”.
Yabolok
further claims that the Russian channel challenges “an elitist aspect of
American politics through populist ideas”, vocalised by experts and show hosts;
real people with real ideas that are often overlooked in the search for a
balanced analysis of certain subjects.
Founded
in 2013 by Jason Bassler and Matt Agorist, the Free Thought
Project, a hub for “conversations about the promotion of liberty and the
daunting task of government accountability”, delivered a
compilation of reportedly fake news about the liberation of Aleppo. Patrick
Henningsen and Shawn Heltoncharacterised the
Western media’s reporting of the Syrian government retake of Eastern Aleppo as
“inverted coverage”.
Examining
the terrain where journalism faces its biggest challenges will be crucial to
determining the veracity of the reporting.
Vanessa
Beeley, a British independent journalist based in Syria, who has been actively
contesting the mainstream media, is reporting from the ground in the war-torn
city of Aleppo. She denounced “the
lies of the Western media”, particularly with regard to the White Helmets.
This volunteer rescue NGO supposedly acts “neutrally, impartially and for all
Syrians”. It was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and was awarded the Right
Livelihood Award, also known as the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’.
Beeley
has accused the
NGO of being “no more than a support network for Al Nusra Front and associated
extremist terrorist groups […] carrying out criminal acts alongside the
recognised US coalition armed and funded terrorist factions”.
Further
research on this topic has revealed that
the White Helmets have been funded “to the tune of over $100 million [by] the
UK and the US alone” and that these resources are channelled through a Dutch
NGO registered as Mayday Rescue.
The
21st Century Wire media outlet – “news for the waking generation” – has
denounced the work of the White Helmets, claiming they have “rescued the same
girl three times in three months” and that “none of [the White Helmet] claims
can be independently verified”.
Eva
Bartlett, a Canadian independent journalist, delivered an interesting and
rather marginalised speech during a press conference at
the United Nations in December 2016. Having visited Syria several times during
the war herself, she condemned the non-existence of Western broadcast news
reporting from the ground in Aleppo and found it astonishing that the
mainstream media in the West had created a deceptive image of the liberation of
Eastern Aleppo.
Diplomatic accusations and geopolitics in Syria
Speaking
at the United Nations Security Council on 14 December 2016, the US Ambassador Samantha
Poweraccused the
Assad government of “conquest and carnage” in Aleppo, rhetorically asking the
Syrian government whether they were ashamed of their actions.
Her
Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin retorted by reproaching the power
of cynicism, indirectly alluding to the wars waged by the US. “The speech by
the US representative is particularly strange to me; she gave her speech as if
she was Mother Teresa herself. Please, remember the track record of your
country,” Churkin said.
Since
Russia’s decision to intervene militarily in Syria in support of Assad’s
forces, the US has vehemently condemned its presence in the country and the
blame-game of “who bombed who” has become routine. Yet, it seems difficult for
the American government to accept the fact that Russia and Iran are effectively
combating the rebels in Syria, many of whom belong to terrorist organisations
that the West too wants to bring to heel.
Mainstream
media: a weapon of disinformation?
In
his book The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, Daniel Estulin points
out that “the world media are part of the global elite”. Estulin further
states, “A free press is a myth because it is property of the powerful. Only
when ownership is shared by many private citizens will a truly free press come
about, based on our ‘right to know’.”
According
to Estulin, the media act as a powerful tool to shape public opinion, while
representing primarily the interests of the rich and influential. Here too, the
problem is the concentration of ownership in a few powerful hands.
The
mainstream media in the US are “very”
dishonest, said Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks,
in a recent interview to
Fox News.
The
documentary film The War You Don’t See by the Australian journalist John
Pilger denounces the ghastly circumstances in which the wars in Iraq,
Afghanistan and even Vietnam were carried out by the US and British governments
and largely ignored by the Western media. The film is based on documented
statements, which reveal the indisputable relationship between the media and
the political sphere, particularly in periods marked by war.
In
yet another documentary, entitled Orwell Rolls in his Grave, the American Robert
Kane Pappas presents additional evidence that portrays the media as an
“antidemocratic force in the United States”.
Manufacturing
Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the classic by Noam
Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, provides a strong theoretical basis to
the idea that the media, by their very nature, serve the ruling power. Applying
the “Propaganda Model”, which is essentially a conceptual theoretical model
explaining how propaganda and systemic biases function in mass media, the
authors claim that the North American media are at the service of large
corporations and the state.
In
times of war there is a wide range of contradictions and they all have the same
goal: to become part of the “reality of the media” by entering people’s houses
and hence becoming part of their realities, shaping their opinions. The
interests of the warring factions, the moral value of the reporters and the
different strategies of media companies play a very important role in
establishing different versions of the truth.
The media do not only report on military conflicts, they play a crucial and
increasingly active role in them. The reporting on the military conflict in
Syria reveals both the magnitude of the task for journalism in wartime and its
structural weaknesses, if not its complete inability to get to grips with
events in a fair and balanced manner.