Tag Archives: USA

Warriors, scouts, Trump’s election and your news media

The media, establishment figures, and seemingly many of Clinton’s supporters,  were surprised at Trump’s victory in the US presidential elections because they think like warriors instead of scouts.

Julia Galef described these different thinking processes in the video above – which I posted 6 months ago (see Are you really right?). Last week’s US presidential election result, the public uproar it resulted in – and my own feelings that the media coverage of the election had been biased for months – make this video even more applicable today.

Julia describes the two different mindsets required in fighting a war:

The  “Warrior mindset” – emotively based and fixated on success. Not interested in stopping to think about the real facts or rationally analyse the situation.

The “Scout mindset” – objective and rational, ready to consider the facts (in fact, searching them out) and logically consider possibilities.

Obviously both mindsets have their place in a war – one could not win if there were not highly motivated and emotionally determined warriors. Nor could one win if there were no scouts who could collect the facts, rationally analyse them and determine the best strategy or tactics.

The pollster’s “warrior mindset”

I think Clinton’s loss, and the subsequent surprise and uproar from her supporters comes from the dominance of a “Warrior mindset” in her campaign. Motivated reasoning, belief of one’s own propaganda – and belief that voters accepted that propaganda – especially the demonisation of the opponent. There seems to have been little place for the “Scout mindset.” Polling seemed driven by wishful thinking and not identification of weak areas where effort could be applied.

In contrast, Trump’s campaign polling seemed to have had more of the “Scout mindset.” Areas requiring attention were identified and resources applied to them. Looking back, I think Trump’s confident assertions about his victory were based on that good polling. And the laughter and disbelieving response from the Clinton camp (and media) was based only on wishful thinking – not good polling.

OK, that partisanship and wishful thinking, and the election result itself, are of little concern to me at this distance. I had no dog in that race. But the partisanship and “Warrior mindset” of the main stream media does concern me.

The media’s “warrior mindset.”

The US media, and the media of many other countries, seemed to have accepted the unfounded confidence and wishful thinking of the Clinton camp. It seemed to indulge in the demonisation and misrepresentation of Donald Trump – willing to laugh at anything he said that was at all buffoonish (while ignoring the often equally extreme comments from Clinton). The media, like the Clinton camp, was out of touch with the thinking of the person in the street and the problems they faced.

Hence the media surprise – and even some critical self-analysis (although how long will the lesson they claim to have learned last?).

But I see the same partisanship, motivated reasoning and outright ignoring or distortion of facts by the media in its treatment of many other world events. Just take the reporting of the war in Syria. So often our media relies on “rebel”/”terrorist” sources for their “facts.” Media sympathy with those “rebels”/”terrorists,” and media hostility to the legitimate Syrian government and its allies is all I have come to expect from most of the main stream media.

I am sometimes attacked for choosing to use a range of media sources for my information. For not restricting myself to the “approved” or “legitimate” media. But surely those critics should learn from their surprise at the US election result.

Today there is no such thing as an objective – let alone an “approved,” or “legitimate” – media. Just media that confirms one’s biases if you let it.

The sensible person must  use a range of news sources, recognising that each of them have their own biases and agendas, and do a bit of thinking for themselves.

Similar articles

US elections – who should you be angry with?

us-election-data

I know – it is easy to blame others for an accident or a tragedy than it is to accept responsibility oneself. But  am amazed at the blame going around at the moment over the US presidential election result.

Trump’s election is being blamed on racist Americans, red-necks, the uneducated “deplorables,” Republican voters, third party voters, etc. People are out in the streets demonstrating, venting their anger on social media and generally working off their anger at a result that should not have been so surprising.

Not all, of course. Some people are looking at the results more critically – refusing to make such outrageous claims about their fellow citizens. I just wish more would do so.

In fact, the voting figures just do not support the outrageous claims being made. It is a bit simplistic to take just the bare party votes – but even these should give food for thought.

Fewer voters supported Trump than supported the Republican nominee in 2012 – almost 700,000 less. But the telling figures is that far fewer voters supported Clinton than supported the democratic nominee in 2012 – about 5 million less!

The difference with 2008 is even more striking – 8.7 million less.

The fact is that Democratic voters turned away from the democratic nominee in their droves. They did not go to Trump – they just didn’t vote.

It seems that both Clinton and Trump turned at least some of the voters off in this election. But the vote went to Trump because many more potentially Democratic voters just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for her.

Those anti-Trump demonstraters out on the streets at the moment are attacking the wrong target. They should get stuck into Clinton for being a lousy or unsuitable candidate. And the Democratic establishment for manipulating the system to allow her to become their candidate.

Similar articles

 

Trump’s victory – why the surprise, why the anger?

This morning my social media threads seem full of emotional outbursts, even hatred, and the ripping of garments. All over the results of the US presidential elections.

But I have to ask – why this emotion? Why the surprise? And why blame the voters.

Why the surprise? Surely a Trump victory was on the cards – even a strong possibility? At least that is how it appeared to me. But then again I did not have a dog in this race. I wasn’t going to vote. I didn’t support either of the main candidates – and weren’t we all saying it was a matter of choosing between two evils? Then why get so partisan, so emotional?

Perhaps it is because of that irrational indulgence – wishful thinking. By the media – to me the election coverage of the main stream media was partisan and biased. And certainly many people in my social media streams were partisan – refusing to face up to the way the US establishment manipulated the election process (successfully in the case of the Democrats) and willfully allowing themselves to be diverted and manipulated by cynical neo-McCarthyism.

But why blame the voters – especially if it was a choice between two evils? Why not blame the system that delivered such a limited choice to voters?

I could go on – but Thomas Frank’s article in the Guardian today certainly says it more eloquently than I can – Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there.

Is Trump all bad?

Frank starts by ripping into Trump and his campaign. Many will agree with his criticisms – although the fact Trump succeeded suggests the possibility he may have known something his critics didn’t, or understood the mood of the electorate better than his critics did.

Frank considers the election result “is a disaster, both for liberalism and for the world.” Again, Frank may be exaggerating. I think he is a buffoon but if Trump’s policies of real international cooperation in the fight against terrorism and getting along with other countries become realities I consider that a positive.

But instead of expanding on what is wrong with Trump, Frank asks the questions others have been afraid to ask.

Why Clinton?

The electorate was in a mood to punish the establishment – so why put up an establishment candidate? Frank puts it this way:

“What we need to focus on now is the obvious question: what the hell went wrong? What species of cluelessness guided our Democratic leaders as they went about losing what they told us was the most important election of our lifetimes?

“Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.

“She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders.

“And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest. They chose Hillary even though they knew about her private email server. They chose her even though some of those who studied the Clinton Foundation suspected it was a sketchy proposition.

“To try to put over such a nominee while screaming that the Republican is a rightwing monster is to court disbelief. If Trump is a fascist, as liberals often said, Democrats should have put in their strongest player to stop him, not a party hack they’d chosen because it was her turn. Choosing her indicated either that Democrats didn’t mean what they said about Trump’s riskiness, that their opportunism took precedence over the country’s well-being, or maybe both.”

A biased and manipulating media

Frank also blames the media – and in my view rightly so. Even with my limited appreciation of politics the media bias and manipulation stood out like a sore thumb:

“Clinton’s supporters among the media didn’t help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation’s papers, but it was the quality of the media’s enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station.”

After listing some of the medias biased pro-Clinton propaganda Frank says:

“How did the journalists’ crusade fail? The fourth estate came together in an unprecedented professional consensus. They chose insulting the other side over trying to understand what motivated them. They transformed opinion writing into a vehicle for high moral boasting. What could possibly have gone wrong with such an approach?”

I think this post-election media comment is very relevant – The media didn’t want to believe Donald Trump could win… So they looked the other way.

Where my social media friends went wrong

What has amazed me, and taught me a lesson (I guess), is how irrational some of my Facebook friends were about this election. And these were people I had friended because on many issues (particularly scientific ones) I considered them rational and unbiased. In the end we are not a rational species and wishful thinking, confirmation bias and avoidance of self-criticism are only human traits. But Frank describes this self-delusion as “the single great mystery of 2016:”

“The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment.”

That insulting and silencing were very real. I experienced the shouting down when I criticised Clinton’s dishonest use of neo-McCarthyist tactics to divert attention aways from her faults. Critics, and even the ordinary people, were insulted and, yes, silenced by this intimidation. Frank points out – “And then they lost.” We are now forced to face up to facts – the emperor really has no clothes.

But I  hope at least some of those social media friends who were caught up in the wishful thinking and group thinking – the partisanship of the US elections – can take on board this bit of advice from Frank:

Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.”

Similar articles

Syria UN Ambassador makes sense of the war in Syria

A brief interview with the Syrian Ambassador to the UN Dr Bashar al-Ja’afari.

With the breakdown of the US-Russia brokered the cessation of hostilities in Syria we are now being bombarded with claims and counter claims of who was responsible. There is also a propaganda barrage coming from the US and its allies suggesting to me they are more concerned about the impending defeat of the “rebels”/”terrorists’ in east Aleppo than they are with humanitarian suffering.

Dr Bashar al-Ja’afari  impresses me with the clear and concise arguments he makes. It is a pity  he is not given the coverage on our main stream media that his position should demand. He makes a lot more sense than the US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power.

Similar articles

The shaky Syrian ceasefire agreement staggers on – or does it?

Video Source: On the Ground News TV

The current Syrian cessation of hostilities agreement, and its problems, are making it harder to pretend that Syria’s’ problems are caused by the “regime.”

We are getting the usual story that the Syrian “regime” is preventing humanitarian aid convoys getting to besieged cities but the facts are becoming harder to hide. “Rebel”/”terrorist” groups like the Free Syrian Army are refusing to leave their positions controlling part of the Castillo highway which the ceasefire agreements designate as “demilitarised.” This is preventing aid convoys from Turkey getting into eastern Aleppo. That part of Aleppo our media concentrates on because it is held by “rebels”/”terrorists” and has been besieged by the Syrian army and its allies. Syrian forces cooperated with the agreement by pulling back from the Costello road but have had to return when “rebel”/”terrorist” militia fired on Red Crescent and Russian marine checkpoints.

Meanwhile the “rebels”/”terrorists” in east Aleppo organised demonstrations against the transport of humanitarian aid along the Castillo road (see video above). The video shows protesters  carrying flags used by the Al Nusra Front (Jabhat Al Nusra or Jabhat Fatah Al Sham) terrorist group.

So we can see the propaganda round humanitarian aid runs along the lines:

  1. Call for humanitarian aid while the Syrian army is advancing
  2. Reject humanitarian aid while there is a ceasefire
  3. Blame the Syrian government for forcing people to starve in Aleppo

And our main stream media often goes along with that narrative.

Russian – US tensions

Meanwhile, tensions between the Russians and the US – the powers which brokered this cessation of hostilities agreement – led the Russian side to demand the text of the agreements be made public so that it can be discussed and supported by the UN. The US has so far resisted this (which led to abandonment of a Security Council discussions on the agreement) and one begins to wonder at their reasons for this lack of transparency

One possibility is internal conflicts about the agreements in the US, primarily between the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon. The US undertaking to coordinate with the Russian Federation in attacking Daesh and Al Nusra has its opponents. Many in the military oppose the exchange with the Russians of intelligence information about locations of “rebel”/”terrorist” forces this requires.

The US undertaking to enforce separation of their proxy “moderate rebels” from their terrorist fighting partners, like Al Nusra, appears to be dead in the water. Either because the US military is unwilling to do this. Or because they are unable – the “moderate rebels” seem happy to continue fighting alongside Al Nusra and are effectively giving the US “the fingers.”

There is also the feeling that neocons are inhibiting fulfilment of the agreements so as to prevent any progress on resolving Syrian problems until after the presidential election when they believe they will have more influence with a Clinton administration.

US bombing threatens to kill the ceasefire

So, the ceasefire agreements seem very shaky at the moment. Despite the fact that most observers do not see any alternative realistic opportunity to  defeat Al Nusra and Daesh and to move towards a political settlement. Even if those aims seem a long way off the immediate problem of getting humanitarian aid to besieged areas relies very much on the agreements working.

And then, as if there were not problems enough, war planes from the US military and their allies (including Australia) have attacked a Syrian Army group fighting to lift the Daesh siege of the city of Deir Ezzor. The attack with phosphorus bombs caused over 200 casualties with reports of 60 to 80 deaths. It was followed by a Daesh ground attack leading to the terrorists gaining ground. This was a critical battle as the position held by the Syrian military were vital to the airdrops supplying the besieged city

Whether intentional (many observers claim is was – given the US policy of regime change and the defeat of the Syrian army) or accidental (the US command called off their attack when the Russian military warned them of what was happening) this is a huge set-back to the co-operation required to make the cessation fo hostilities agreement work. An urgent US Security Council meeting called to discuss this attack lead to angry recriminations between Russian and US diplomats and increased calls for the text of the agreements to be released.

Te Syrian military command has now announced the ceasefire is over. They are engaged in intensified fighting around Aleppo as “rebel”terrorist” militia have launched a new attack on the south-west part of the city.

Actions threatening ceasefire illustrate the need for the ceasefire

On the one hand, all these factors damage any possibility for the ceasefire to hold and for the next stage of cooperation to defeat terrorism to start. But, on the other hand, these events surely underline the urgent necessity of the cooperative and coordinated actions called for in the agreements.

  • Exchange of intelligence and cooperation between the US and Russia in military attacks on the terrorist groups of Daesh and Al Nusra is sorely needed and, if allowed to go ahead, will be very effective.
  • Separation of “moderate rebels” (who should welcome a ceasefire and the opportunity to participate in the future political process) from the officially declared terrorist groups of Al Nusra and Daesh is essential. Until now, cooperation between “terrorist” and “moderate” rebels has been an obstacle to defeating terrorism and has led to a constant complaint from the US that the Russian aerospace forces are actually bombing the US proxy groups.
  • The agreement to include so-called “moderate” rebels which refuse to disengage from their cooperation with Al Nusra and Daesh in the common targeting by the US and Russia is necessary. And, after all, if a “moderate” rebel group fights alongside a terrorist group, refuses to participate in a ceasefire and continues to prevent humanitarian aid from reaching civilians there is surely no reason to treat them differently to terrorist groups.

As the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, said last year in  response to a question about identifying which groups are terrorist:

“If it talks like a terrorist, walks like a terrorist and acts like a terrorist – then it is a terrorist.”

Let’s treat them like terrorists, then.

Similar articles

 

When will they ever learn?

libya-report

So, now we have a new Parliamentary Report from the UK which is sharply critical of the 2011 intervention in Libya. This follows on from the Chilcot report which was sharply critical of the 2003 intervention in Iraq.

I wonder if a few years down the track we will see a similar report sharply critical of the UK, French and US intervention in Syria?

The summary of the Libyan report reads in part:

“In March 2011, the United Kingdom and France, with the support of the United States, led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from attacks by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. This policy was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa. Through his decision making in the National Security Council, former Prime Minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”

In Syria, we have seen the same interventionist approach. Hell bent on regime change, politicians in the UK, USA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and NATO countries have blindly repeated the mantra “Assad must go.” They have exaggerated the suffering resulting from actions of the Syrian government (or more correctly, attributed all the suffering solely to the government). Recognise the clause above for Libya:

“This policy was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element.”

By backing armed anti-government militia those advocates of “regime change” have ignored the inevitable anarchy and spread of terror that would result if their campaign is successful.

Again, recognise the clause above for Libya:

“That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa.”

When will these politicians learn these lessons from history?

Similar articles

Ceasefire in Syria is exposing real nature of “moderate” rebels

This video illustrates the international nature of the terrorist opposition in Syria.

The new cessation of hostilities agreement for Syria, brokered by the US and the Russian Federation, may have only a small chance of success – although let’s hope it does work. But one thing it has done is clarify the nature of the “opposition” in Syria and the problem the US has with its chosen proxies in that country.

The US and its NATO allies have long claimed they are supporting the “moderate opposition.” And that support has included finance and arms. The have also condemned the actions of the aerospace forces of the Russian federation – claiming the Russians are targeting the “moderate” rebels, the US allies, instead of the terrorist groups – Daesh and Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, the formerly named Al Nusra (The UN describes both of these groups as terrorist).

The US has now been forced to admit that their “moderate” rebels are intricately entwined with the terrorist groups. That these groups fight together, often share the same command and territory. In fact, the recent attacks in the large battles raging around the major Syrian city of Aleppo have involved the  “Army of Conquest” where the “moderate” rebels and terrorist groups have united under the command of Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham (the terrorist Al Nusra group).

The US is acknowledging that their pleas for the “moderate” rebels to distance themselves from the terrorists have fallen on deaf ears. US Secretary of State John Kerry has even suggested that those “moderate” rebels who do not distance themselves will now be subject to US bombing if the cessation of hostilities can last for 7 days.

Some “moderate” rebels have accepted the cessation of hostilities agreement – but many haven’t. Over 20 groups recently announced their rejection in a document presented by the Free Syrian Army (supported and financed by the US).

fsa-rejection

Over 20 militant groups in Syria have rejected the US-Russian brokered ceasefire. Credit:Over 20 militant groups reject the Syrian ceasefire agreement.”

This announcement was made by the Free Syrian Army but many of the groups rejecting the ceasefire are not a part of that group’s umbrella. These groups claim:

“the major reasons for the rejection of the ceasefire is that it benefits the Syrian Army more so than their own militant factions. They also state that because it excludes Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, formerly known as al-Nusra, from the ceasefire, they cannot agree to those terms.”

Perhaps if these agreements do fail (as many if not most commentators expect) they will still have left one success. The clear identification of most of the so-called “moderate” rebels with their terrorist allies – Daesh and Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. Hopefully, this will make claims that Russian attacks on terrorist groups are actually attacks on “our” “moderate” rebels a thing of the past.

Surely that would be progress.

Similar articles

 

What do Syrians think of the new cessation of hostilities agreement?

Cautious optimism seems to be a common international response to the cessation of hostilities deal announced for Syria by John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov yesterday. But what do Syrians think?

RT’s correspondent Lizzie Phelan did some live recording of the views of residents in a South Aleppo suburb. It seems they will make the most of the cessation of hostilities but think there won’t be any resolution until the  foreign terrorists leave their land.

Our media usually restricts itself to covering the small part of Aleppo held by “rebels”/”terrorists” so it is refreshing to hear from the rest of this city.

Thanks to  ‘No moderate rebels here’: RT talks with Aleppo civilians on new ceasefire deal.

Similar articles

Barrel bombs, hell cannons, Aleppo and media bias

The result of terrorist shelling of Aleppo

I guess most readers have become familiar with barrel bombs – an indiscriminate weapon currently being used by government forces in the Syrian war. But how many have heard of “hell cannons?”

I hadn’t until recently and I think this shows the bias in our media coverage of the conflict. Hell cannons are an indiscriminate weapon used by rebel/jihadist forces, cause terror and  civilian damage and loss of life. Unfortunately, our media often seems to paint the picture that only government actions cause civilian losses.

1104_cannon

“Rebels” load hell cannon with explosive filled gas bottle in Aleppo. (Getty)

This bias seems particularly bad in their current reporting of the civilian deaths in Aleppo. Here are some of the mythical stories our news media is promoting:

1: The government is not attacking a city held by “rebels” as many of our media stories imply. Rebels hold the smaller part of the city in the east and attacks by the government forces and its allies are aimed at removing them. There is also intensive fighting in areas around Aleppo – particularly in the north where Syrian and allied forces recently disrupted rebel supply lines with Turkey.

So, if anyone is attacking Aleppo it is the rebels/jihadists.

2: The claim that the government and its allies are attacking “moderate rebels” is biased propaganda. the anti-government militias are numerous and allegiances are complex. They often fight among themselves.  Some may well be “moderate” but they cooperate and are often integrated with Al-Nusra – the main terrorist/jihadist group in the area.

How does one define “moderate” in Syria, though? I guess one way is to characterize those rebel militia which accepted the recent cessation of hostilities and signed ceasefire agreements with the Syrian government, as outlined in the US/Russian initiative, as the real “moderates” ready to take part in a political solution. It would seem that the “rebel” militia fighting in Aleppo have not accepted the cessation of hostilities agreement.

3: I recently heard an Al Jazeera reporter imply that only the Russians and Syrian government classifies “rebel” groups like Al Nusra as “terrorists” implying this was unfair. Again biased propaganda. The UN specifically lists Al-Nusra, together with Daesh (ISIS) as a terrorist organisation. Those groups were specifically excluded from the cessation of hostilities agreement.

There is a media tendency to describe only Daesh as terrorist or to present the aim of the US-based coalition and the Russian Federation in Syria as fighting Daesh. US spokespersons seem to repeat that description. This is very misleading. The UN and the cessation of hostilities agreement make clear that Al-Nusra is also the enemy.

Al-Nusra is the Al-Qaeda group in Syria (ISIS/Daesh originally broke away from Al-Nusra). Its aims and programme are just as obnoxious as those of Daesh but Al-Nusra has been able to form links with other anti-government militia – often groups that have been backed, armed and financed by the US and its middle eastern allies (eg. Saudia Arabia and Qatar). Very often these militia are operating under the command and structures of Al-Nusra. The ability of Al-Nusra to form these arrangements probably means it will outlast Daesh – and may actually be the bigger danger.

The death of the “last pediatrician” in Aleppo?

A blatant example of bias has been the media claim that a pediatrician who died in the bombing or shelling of a hospital in the rebel-held eastern part of Aleppo meant Aleppo no longer had any pediatricians. Horrible Syrian government denying medical care for children!

But Dr Nabil Antaki, who works in Aleppo, responded to this propaganda with this:

“For three days now, these media outlets have been accusing the “Assad regime” of bombing an MSF hospital [Medecins sans Frontieres] to the east of Aleppo and of killing the last paediatrician in the city. This demonstrates that, for these media, the only priority is this pocket of the city where terrorists are embedded.

The three-quarters of Aleppo under Syrian Government control where numerous paediatricians are practicing is of no consequence for this media. We witnessed the same bias when Al Kindi, the biggest hospital in Aleppo, was targeted by terrorist mortars and then intentionally burnt down about 2 or 3 years ago. The media ignored this criminal act.”

He refers to this sort of propaganda as “lying by omission” saying:

“This media never mention the continuous bombardment and the carnage we have witnessed in western Aleppo where every single sector has been targeted. On a daily basis we see dozens of people murdered.

What makes these omissions even more despicable is that these areas represent 75% of Aleppo and there are 1.5 million people living in them. Compare this to the 300,000 living in the eastern zone which is occupied by terrorist groups.

This twisted narrative engenders the belief that these terrorist groups that are attacking us are actually the victims. Even more abhorrent, these media have distorted our “Save Aleppo” appeal, to make it look as if we are calling for Assad and the Syrian Army to cease hostilities!

This is FALSE. Added to which, they are not “Assad’s forces“, they are the national forces of the regular Syrian army that is defending the Syrian State.

The western and gulf media could at least have had the decency to mention the terrorist massacres of our people. For example, on Friday 30th April, when one of their mortars targeted a mosque at prayer time.”

Footnote: I find the New Zealand media pathetic in its coverage of events like the Syrian war and tend to search for other sources. I regularly watch Al Jazeera but now find their coverage of Syria extremely biased. Perhaps this is because the organisation is based in, and financed by Qatar, a sponsor (together with Saudi Arabia and Turkey) of anti-government forces in Syria.

Of late I notice that Al Jazeera has been smudging out the logos identifying sources in many of the videos they display. Can’t help thinking they wish to cover up they fact they are relying on the “rebel’ news media for their videos of action in Syria.

Pathetic if true.

Similar articles

 

Why is Donald Trump so successful – and will he win?

Trump-web

I think Donald Trump is a buffoon – but perhaps I have got it all wrong. According to ‘Dilbert’ creator, Scott Adams, Trump is the ultimate politician – especially in deploying his powers of persuasion. And surely that is what all politicians want to do? In fact, Adams believes  Trump is so good at persuasion that he will win the election in a landslide.

Michael Cavna outlines Adams’s arguments in the Washington Post article Donald Trump will win in a landslide. *The mind behind ‘Dilbert’ explains why. Basically, it boils down to the fact that:

“On the stump, the real-estate mogul is not running on the knowledge of his numbers or the dissection of the data. He is running on our emotions, Adams says, and sly appeals to our own human irrationality. . . . .

“Most simply put: Adams believes Trump will win because he’s ‘a master persuader.’”

OK – that analysis appeals to me -I have often asserted that humans are not a rational species – more a rationalising one. Emotions play a huge role in our decisions – even when we think, and claim, we are acting rationally. “Psychology is the only necessary skill for running for president,” writes Adams, adding: “Trump knows psychology.”

So, here are 6 things Trump is doing to win hearts and minds:

People are irrational

1. Trump knows people are basically irrational.

“If you see voters as rational you’ll be a terrible politician,” Adams writes on his blog. “People are not wired to be rational. Our brains simply evolved to keep us alive. Brains did not evolve to give us truth. Brains merely give us movies in our minds that keeps us sane and motivated. But none of it is rational or true, except maybe sometimes by coincidence.”

2. Knowing that people are irrational, Trump aims to appeal on an emotional level.

“The evidence is that Trump completely ignores reality and rational thinking in favor of emotional appeal,” Adams writes. “Sure, much of what Trump says makes sense to his supporters, but I assure you that is coincidence. Trump says whatever gets him the result he wants. He understands humans as 90-percent irrational and acts accordingly.”

Adams adds: “People vote based on emotion. Period.”

Fact don’t matter

Apparently this cynical approach has the advantage that facts are not longer important:

3. By running on emotion, facts don’t matter.

Adams writes. “There are plenty of important facts Trump does not know. But the reason he doesn’t know those facts is – in part – because he knows facts don’t matter. They never have and they never will. So he ignores them.

“Right in front of you.”

4. If facts don’t matter, you can’t really be “wrong.”

Trump “doesn’t apologize or correct himself. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump looks stupid, evil, and maybe crazy,” Adams writes. “If you understand persuasion, Trump is pitch-perfect most of the time. He ignores unnecessary rational thought and objective data and incessantly hammers on what matters (emotions).”

5. With fewer facts in play, it’s easier to bend reality.

Trump can be thin-skinned when his “reality” is challenged. “The Master Persuader will warp reality until he gets what he wants,” writes Adams, noting that Trump is “halfway done” already.

Identitiy politics

Finally, something which many of us find especially hateful – the denigration of people – turns out to be yet another powerful trick in Trump’s persuasion arsenal.

6. To bend reality, Trump is a master of identity politics — and identity is the strongest persuader.

“Do you think it is a coincidence that Trump called Megyn Kelly a bimbo and then she got a non-bimbo haircut that is … well, Trumpian?” Adams writes. “It doesn’t look like a coincidence to this trained persuader. . . .

“Writes Adams: “Identity is always the strongest level of persuasion. The only way to beat it is with dirty tricks or a stronger identity play. … [And] Trump is well on his way to owning the identities of American, Alpha Males, and Women Who Like Alpha Males. Clinton is well on her way to owning the identities of angry women, beta males, immigrants, and disenfranchised minorities.

“If this were poker, which hand looks stronger to you for a national election?”

It’s a pretty convincing argument. We ignore the irrationality of humans at our peril and most political commenters had dismissed Trump because he is irrational. They ignored the fact that he had special skills at appealing to emotion and using crude identity politics.

But, I hope Adams is exaggerating in his claim that Trump will win the presidency in a landslide. I hope there enough people who refuse to be led by such crude emotional and identity politics appeals. However, the fact that there is a large number of American’s who are persuaded by such buffoonery is a worrying thing.

Mind you – I think all politicians use similar techniques – appeal to emotions and our irrational nature, neglecting or bending facts and use of identity politics. But I like to think there is a large proportion of the population who are concerned with facts, are appalled by identity politics and are suspicious of emotional manipulation.

Hopefully, this proportion is large enough to prevent the landslide victory Adams is predicting. Mind you – the alternative may present equally large problems to the world?

Similar articles