We take it for granted that the media can't be trusted in countries which are not "free". However, there is no doubt that what we read in so-called "free" countries is also heavily biased, and has an agenda. I'm not just talking about the most blatant sources such as Fox News. I'm talking about nearly everything.
Each news outlet has an agenda. They pick sides. It is often great to pick sides. For example, supporting the fact that humans are changing the earth's climate is what news outlets should be doing because all of the evidence points to that. When problems arise is when news outlets pick a side and then go with it, no matter the countervailing evidence. Some of it might be related to pleasing the "free" governments that look over them, and some of it might be due to one of the most destructive beliefs ever - that good always battles bad (and thus, "bad" and "bad" or "bad" and "worse" never fight). I can say that Assad is not good in that no way would I want him in charge of the country I live in. However, he might be better than the alternative. And make no mistake. Terrorist groups would overcome the Free Syrian Army if Assad ever fell.
For one common example of propaganda, look at this quote from an article at the Christian Science Monitor, "Why ISIS gains in Iraq are reshaping Syrian regime's war strategy" (LINK). There are some rather dubious claims in it. For example:
Although sworn enemies on paper, ISIS has largely refrained from fighting the Syrian regime to focus on building an Islamic state in northern Syria and ousting more moderate rebel rivals. In return, the regime has left ISIS alone, allowing the Syrian military to concentrate on fighting the moderate rebel groups. At the same time, Assad also points to the brutal exploits of ISIS and other jihadist groups in the conflict to justify its argument to the international community that it is fighting Islamic “terrorists.”
This is completely false. This article makes it seem like the Syrian government hasn't been fighting ISIS. It has...and in fact, ISIS controls more land in Syria than any other rebel group. I don't think that Assad just decided to let a Sunni group dedicated to the genocide of Alawites gain control over such a large portion of the nation. Do you? Take a look at the map below (from June 6th, 2014):
The red is the Syrian government. The black is ISIS. The yellow are Kurdish rebel groups. And the light green?...The light green is "the rest of the rebels", and combines the Free Syrian Army, Al-Nusra Front (a terrorist organization and branch of Al-Qaeda), and the Islamic Front. Granted, the Western area is more populated, but we can't say that the fight has mostly been between the Syrian regime and the Free Syrian Army when as you can see, there are so many factions involved.
If you read lots of news articles, you might notice something. Terrorists attack the United States, the UK, and Spain. However, "terrorists" attack China, Russia, and Syria. Do you know why "terrorists" is in quotation marks? Because they're not REAL terrorists. They're freedom fighters, of course! So when "terrorists" kill 400 civilians in a giant blast in Damascus, you can rest assured that the civilians had it coming.
I've started getting into reading "Yahoo! News", as there are articles from various outlets but anyone on Yahoo! can comment. Thus, there are active discussions after each article, and they are often more interesting than the articles themselves. There are lots of crazy people, as can be expected. You can find "Thanks to Obummer, the Muslim!" and such things. However, on the article above, at least two comments called out the bias. You can find some perceptive people.
There are also funny people who comment. One comment (by "Mexican Craftsman") on an Associated Press article (on Yahoo! News) entitled "Signs of reprisal killings emerge in Iraq" (LINK) said, "Can we not tell the Chinese that Muslims taste like chicken and leave you with a 4 hour stiffy! They will mow thru them in a matter of months." Not the most politically correct words ever written, and in fact quite offensive to all groups that are mentioned, but I must say I did get a chuckle out of it. And sometimes, a chuckle is what you need.
Comments
Post a Comment