Voluntary media censorship is ethically wrong

Reporting the Syrian war has become very partisan. Some established media simply do not cover aspects of the war or limit their coverage to one side. The concerned person cannot, and should not, rely on a single media source to get reliable information.

I am not asserting there is organisational censorship – far from it. Just that censorship often operates by omission. For example, Al Jazeera never covers the facts of civilian deaths in western Aleppo because they have no reporters in that city. Whereas they closely cover (alleged) civilian deaths in the eastern part of the city held by “rebels”/”terrorists.” They seem to have reporters embedded in the “rebel”/”terrorist” militia – or simply uncritically pass on the information provided to them by “activists” involved in the fighting. Almost every night they seem to pass on video and reports from the “White Helmets” – a very suspect organisation with links to Al Qaeda.

But the video above provides another example of how voluntary media self-censorship works in the war.

The speaker is the Syrian Ambassador to the UN, Dr Bashar al-Ja’afari. I have written before about him, saying that he:

“impresses me with the clear and concise arguments he makes. It is a pity  he is not given the coverage on our mainstream media that his position should demand. He makes a lot more sense than the US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power.”

Now, I think I know why he gets no coverage. The media self-censors when it comes to his press conferences.

If you do not have time to watch the whole video fast forward to about 49 minutes and 30 secs. Here he describes what happens when he gives press conferences alongside Security Council meetings. Such press conferences are commonly given by the ambassadors to update media on the views and stance of government’s.

Bashar describes how  when his turn comes to speak to the accredited reporters – an audience of about 50 – 100 who have the opportunity to put questions to the speaker – 50% of the reporters get up and leave! I was aware that ambassadors from unfriendly countries (like USA, France, and the UK) do this – leave the security council meetings – when the Syrian Ambassador speaks. But the media!

As Dr al-Ja’afari says,  these reporters not only self-censor by omission when they leave – they cannot report the information they do not receive – they also self-censor by removing the obligation to report from such press conferences.

I think that is morally wrong and violates any reasonable concept of reporting ethics.

The speech is well worth watching through to the end. It is very informative and interesting. He explains the background the 9/11, describes the nature if secularism in Syria, and exposes some of the underhand methods used in the UN to cover up the UN commission’s report of the claims of weapons if mass destruction in Iraq. He also relates the story of how the issue of chemical weapons and their use in Syria was mishandled.

Similar articles

 

 

Media misleading on Syria

“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.”

That is according to a recent Op-ed by Stephen Kinzer in the Boston Globe. The article is The media are misleading the public on Syria.

This article is a sight for sore eyes – a “mouse” roaring against the “lion” of misinformation on the Syrian war. I am fed up with the biased reporting of the Syrian conflict and the surrounding political aspects. Information coming from people outside the country – even blatantly so as in TV news reports from Turkey. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (reporting from Coventry in the UK) is often used as sources for reports of bombings., civilian casualties, etc. yet who the hell considers that an objective source.

Aleppo – liberation?

Kinzer writes about recent reporting of the fighting in and around Allepo – which was once Syria’s largest city:

“For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression.  . . . Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars,” one Aleppo resident wrote on social media.”

“This does not fit with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a “liberated zone” for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.

“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.”

And this “convoluted nonsense” is largely the story delivered by our own media. One has to search very hard to find alternative information – to get a real idea of what is happening in Syria.

Syrian armed forces placing the Syrian flag on Aleppo thermal power plant after capturing it from Daesh. This completed the eviction of Jihadists from Aleppo. Photo Credit:  Chris Tchaikovsky

Kinzer complains:

“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.”

And that is what is passed on to us by the “approved” or “official” news media.

Genuine reporting lost “in the cacophony”

Yet:

“Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.”

He goes on to complain that our media portrays al-Nusra as “made up of ‘rebels’ or ‘moderates'” whereas “it is the “local al-Qaeda franchise.”  Saudi Arabia and Turkey are portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when they actually sponsor Daesh, finance and supply and other jihadist groups. However:

“Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.”

We should expect far more from journalists:

“Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.”

And this media inspired ignorance is dangerous, for us, for regional peace and for the Syrian people:

” In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.”

Similar articles

The changing face of science communication

All the reports from the inquiries into the climategate issue are worth reading. It is the nature of thoughtful inquiries that not only are problems identified, claims checked and unjustified accusations refuted. There are also usually some suggestions for improvements.

I think the attention that has been paid to issues like peer review, importance of statistical analysis, making public data available and the handling of freedom of information requests has been worthwhile. Hopefully scientific  institutes, professional bodies and scientific journals will pay attention.

The Independent Climate Change email Review which reported last week  made interesting comments on the communication of science and the role of scientists in this. Mike at Watching the Deniers has written a thoughtful article on lessons we can draw from this report on this and other matters. It’s well worth a read – I recommend it (see The chief lesson of Climategate: the depths of our naivety).

Scientific controversies?

The main stream media (MSM) often promote the idea of scientific controversies where none really exist. That is, the controversy may be within the media itself. Or within religion or politics. But it’s not within the scientific community. The creationism/evolution and global warming/climate change denial are two examples of such controversies.

On he other hand there are scientific controversies/debates raging within the scientific community which the public may be oblivious to. Evolutionary science is a lively dynamic area so of course their are scientific debates going on – there just not about creationism. Similarly, climate scientists will vigorously debate the meaning and significance of new evidence and the reliability of computer models – but those debates are not what the climate change deniers are talking about.

So how can the public check out these “controversies?” How can they assess if they are real debates within the scientific community or fictions of the main stream media? Or perhaps that the real debate is political or religious rather than scientific?