Look at this propagnda dispatch by both members of the NYT propaganda team in Beirut. It is basically a he-said-she-said report but they add: only believe one side in the story.
1) The report begins by stating that both sides are accusing each other but then clearly quickly takes sides to belive one side: "While the opposition reported the attack soon after it happened, Syrian state television first mentioned it the day after in an urgent news banner during a broadcast." So according to the team, the lies of one side are more believable because the lie was earlier than the other lie? Also, why not mention that the armed opposition side claims gas and chemical attacks ALMOST EVERY DAY. Why not mention that the armed opposition side regularly makes claims that almost always never get proven? Why not mention that the armed groups are habitual liars and that their record of lies have alreayd exceeded the lies of the habitual liars of the Syrian regime? Why not mention that the were live footage of the fall of Rankus on various TV stations when the armed groups, including your beloved FSA, was issuing statements that Rankus has not fallen? If you indicate to your readers that the FSA has a long history of lying, the readers would be better served.
2) Here, Barnard and Hubbard take some time off to castigate Western governments for not bombing Syria: "If the government used toxic arms now, that would suggest that it felt it could act with impunity because of international reluctance to punish it militarily. Since the Aug. 21 episode," Imagine if the sentence read: Syrian armed groups act with impunity and commit massacres regularly because they are never blamed by Western governments and because a UN official said last week that the "atrocities" by the rebels are not that significant?
3) I don't want to bother Barnard and Hubbard but look at this editorial sentence inserted: "government tactics like starving rebel areas and bombing residential neighborhoods have continued unabated, killing many more people than chemical weapons have". Is it possible to add: rebel tactics like starving predominantly Christian and Alawite and Druze and Shi`ite have continued unabated as well, killing more people than chemical weapons have? Would that not be true as well? Why continue to ignore the crimes of one side in a conflict? Are you now competing with liz Sly for services to the Free Syrian Army cause?
4) Then this: "Western officials say there is no indication that insurgents have toxic weapons". Are you saying that Western officials are likely to blame the groups that they arm and finance? Did the US government ever blame the criminal gangs of Contras in Nicaragua for their war crimes?
5) And look how the article does mention unverified claism by rebels: "Numerous attacks reported by the government’s opponents in the months before August 2013 produced hard-to-classify symptoms and killed few people," Why not say they were unverified and unrpoven unless by "hard-to-classify" you mean that there were symptoms of nuclear weapons. What a joke really, but Syrian people are dying from war crimes by both sides so nothing is funny here.
PS I don't know who this correspondent of the Los Angels Times is but look how superior and more credible and professional this dispatch this is. Barnard and Hubbard can learn from him a great deal.
1) The report begins by stating that both sides are accusing each other but then clearly quickly takes sides to belive one side: "While the opposition reported the attack soon after it happened, Syrian state television first mentioned it the day after in an urgent news banner during a broadcast." So according to the team, the lies of one side are more believable because the lie was earlier than the other lie? Also, why not mention that the armed opposition side claims gas and chemical attacks ALMOST EVERY DAY. Why not mention that the armed opposition side regularly makes claims that almost always never get proven? Why not mention that the armed groups are habitual liars and that their record of lies have alreayd exceeded the lies of the habitual liars of the Syrian regime? Why not mention that the were live footage of the fall of Rankus on various TV stations when the armed groups, including your beloved FSA, was issuing statements that Rankus has not fallen? If you indicate to your readers that the FSA has a long history of lying, the readers would be better served.
2) Here, Barnard and Hubbard take some time off to castigate Western governments for not bombing Syria: "If the government used toxic arms now, that would suggest that it felt it could act with impunity because of international reluctance to punish it militarily. Since the Aug. 21 episode," Imagine if the sentence read: Syrian armed groups act with impunity and commit massacres regularly because they are never blamed by Western governments and because a UN official said last week that the "atrocities" by the rebels are not that significant?
3) I don't want to bother Barnard and Hubbard but look at this editorial sentence inserted: "government tactics like starving rebel areas and bombing residential neighborhoods have continued unabated, killing many more people than chemical weapons have". Is it possible to add: rebel tactics like starving predominantly Christian and Alawite and Druze and Shi`ite have continued unabated as well, killing more people than chemical weapons have? Would that not be true as well? Why continue to ignore the crimes of one side in a conflict? Are you now competing with liz Sly for services to the Free Syrian Army cause?
4) Then this: "Western officials say there is no indication that insurgents have toxic weapons". Are you saying that Western officials are likely to blame the groups that they arm and finance? Did the US government ever blame the criminal gangs of Contras in Nicaragua for their war crimes?
5) And look how the article does mention unverified claism by rebels: "Numerous attacks reported by the government’s opponents in the months before August 2013 produced hard-to-classify symptoms and killed few people," Why not say they were unverified and unrpoven unless by "hard-to-classify" you mean that there were symptoms of nuclear weapons. What a joke really, but Syrian people are dying from war crimes by both sides so nothing is funny here.
PS I don't know who this correspondent of the Los Angels Times is but look how superior and more credible and professional this dispatch this is. Barnard and Hubbard can learn from him a great deal.
