We all know that
propaganda plays a huge role in how governments mold the public's perception of
war. With the recent missile attacks on the Homs airfield in Syria in
response to the regime's alleged use of chemical weapons, propaganda quickly
became part of the picture.
Here is how Fox News reported the attack:
Here's the quote:
"The Syrian
airfield targeted by United States airstrikes early Friday was “almost
completely destroyed,” a human rights group in the country said.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights said the missile attack damaged over a dozen hangars, a fuel depot and
an air defense base. About 60 U.S. Tomahawk missiles hit the Shayrat air base,
southeast of Homs, a small installation with two runways.
At least six Syrian soldiers were killed and
several wounded in the airstrike, the country's military said. The governor of
Homs province said he did not believe the strikes caused a large number of
“human casualties.” A Syrian official the attack caused deaths and a fire, but
did not elaborate.
The U.S. missiles hit at 3:45 a.m. local time
in Syria. Syrian state TV called the attack an "aggression" that lead
to "losses."
Initial indications are that this strike has
severely damaged or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and
equipment at Shayrat Airfield, reducing the Syrian government's ability to
deliver chemical weapons," Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said,
according to Reuters."
That does sound like a rather decisive blow against the military capability of the Assad regime, doesn't it?
Now, in
sharp contrast, here's how the attack was reported by Russia's
Rossiya news channel through a report by Evgeny Poddubny, one of its
correspondents who is actuaalyat the scene:
As you can see, while
there has been significant damage, the Homs airfield has not been “completely
destroyed”. There are undamaged hangars
containing undamaged fighter jets and at least one of the runways looks
undamaged as shown here:
So, who is right?
Let's look at a quote from a Boston Globe article from 2016
about the issue of American journalism and Syria:
“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.” (my bold)
Propaganda is alive and well. The situation in Syria is proof of that.
YouTube South Front & R&U videos for the best coverage of the war in Syria (in English)
ReplyDelete