Asymmetrical Polarization

[Thomas Eckhardt]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 05:05:28 -0500
  Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thomas Eckhardt:

> TE:
> "For me these people are warmongers who sell regime 
>change wars to the
> public." [ well, a clear statement that you will believe 
>what you want to
> believe despite paying lip service to 'fact-finding and 
>reporting". I like
> the surfacing of reality here]

I don't call it a fact. It is my opinion, yes. If you are 
aware of Michael Gordon addressing this or similar 
allegations, I would be interested to listen to his 
explanation. The NYT has issued a mea culpa:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html

Here are some readers' reactions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/opinion/the-times-and-iraq-a-mea-culpa-and-a-debate-9-letters.html

> And "the general impression one gets" etc. shows another 
>bit of honesty:
> TE's impressions are not actually measurable without 
>further definition of
> sources of information, facts, judgment of what is 
>mainstream and why.

That is why I used "impression." I don't think, however, 
that I have to justify my opinion. It is those who now 
once again trust journalists that have been used (to use 
your benign explanation) to channel government propaganda 
to the public in the past who need good reasons for this. 
Fool me once etc.

My opinions and impressions are based on reading articles 
by, for example, Stephen Kinzer and Patrick Coburn. Both 
are experienced journalists whose opinions can not easily 
be discounted I assume. Both are on record as stating with 
regard to Syria that they have rarely witnessed propaganda 
on this scale:

"Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of 
the most shameful episodes in the history of the American 
press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of 
Aleppo is the latest reason why."

"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."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html

"The nadir of Western media coverage of the wars in Iraq 
and Syria has been the reporting of the siege of East 
Aleppo, which began in earnest in July and ended in 
December, when Syrian government forces took control of 
the last rebel-held areas and more than 100,000 civilians 
were evacuated. During the bombardment, TV networks and 
many newspapers appeared to lose interest in whether any 
given report was true or false and instead competed with 
one another to publicise the most eye-catching atrocity 
story even when there was little evidence that it had 
taken place."

"All wars always produce phony atrocity stories – along 
with real atrocities. But in the Syrian case fabricated 
news and one-sided reporting have taken over the news 
agenda to a degree probably not seen since the First World 
War."

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n03/patrick-cockburn/who-supplies-the-news





-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l