Some mainstream news channels have been recently caught carrying dubious footage from Syria. It fuels the debate over media's role in legitimizing possible military intervention in the country.
'Danny' is a Syrian opposition activist who reports from Homs for CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. He is attached to the opposition movement and regularly calls for military invasion of Syria. He's identified as Danny Abdul Dayem, a 22-year-old British citizen of Syrian origin.
In a video leaked online, Danny appears to be falsifying a video broadcast for CNN. Prior to going on air, he requests colleagues to fire weapons to dramatize his Live report with Anderson Cooper. Though he denied any wrongdoings in an interview to CNN after the video went viral, his reliability as a verified news source was called into question.
Danny is far from being a lone soldier in an increasingly dirty information war. Investigative journalist Rafik Lotf has spent months looking at the background to footage that has helped shaped global opinion on the conflict. He told RT that Al Jazeera is involved in video fabrication to discredit the Syrian regime and cites a video described by Al Jazeera as proof Syrian Govt forces had bombed an oil pipeline.
"I know this video is on the Al Jazeera server. It is clear it is not an explosion but they ignore that and keep on reporting on the way they need to see it," he said.
It is even thought that the clip may have been staged by rebels who blew up the pipeline themselves, as alleged on Infowars.com.
Dark turns in Syria's blame game
All Journalists admit that verifying footage on the ground in Syria is difficult, nigh on impossible.
Most recently shocking footage emerged of some 47 bodies, including women and children found with their throats slit, bearing stab wounds and signs of rape. The opposition called for a UNSC emergency meeting on 'the massacre'.
Assad's government, in turn, announced that 'terrorist gangs' killed those in the video and claimed Homs' residents recognized relatives among the dead, who had been previously kidnapped by the Syrian rebels.
As the mutual blame game spirals downwards and civilian suffering continues, the recent resignations of key Al Jazeera journalists may serve as a clear indicator -- that some mainstream Syria conflict coverage is far from objective.
Devious Reporter Lies to Sell another war to the public. Don't Let Them Trick Us into Another War! See These Videos, Click Here for Playlist:
Before 1979, the U.S. strongly supported Iran's nuclear energy programs. Mainstream media is helping sell another illegal war. The way they do this is mainly by not reporting things or under-reporting things.
"Introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals" - Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State for President Ford
"the IAEA report made no firm conclusion that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, and noted that its inspections of Iran's facilities continue to show no diversion of uranium for military purposes."
☞ PASS IT ON: http://tinyurl.com/NYTcaught
Recommended FAIR radio show clip:
PASS IT ON ☞ http://tinyurl.com/DerailWarTrain
PASS IT ON ☞ http://tinyurl.com/WarmongerCalledOut
PASS IT ON ☞ http://tinyurl.com/WarPropagandaExposed
☀ The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy
☀ Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East
"Howard Friel and Richard Falk reveal the persistent ways the New York Times has ignored principles of international law in order to shield its readers from Israel's lawlessness."
NYT bias for Israel continues
Warmongers who sold you the Iraq war are pushing for a war with Iran.
FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Action Alert
NYT Misleads Readers on Iran Crisis
Paper disappears some inaccurate reporting
Youtuber tantzer sent me this info: In a Congressional hearing early in 2011, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, replying to Senator Carl Levin, confirmed that as of 2011, the American intelligence community has a high level of confidence that Iran has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program.
This testimony reflects the contents of the 2011 National Intelligence Estimate. Its texts has not been released, but from the Congressional testimony, it's clear that it repeats the conclusions of the 2007 that since 2003 Iran has not pursued military applications of nuclear technology. The text of the 2007 NIE was published during the Bush presidency.
Sanger of the New York Times has often relayed misinformation from anonymous U.S. officials to the effect that the 2011 NIE would reverse that of 2007. On 6/8/10, he wrote that the new NIE "is using new evidence to revise and in some cases reverse conclusions from that  estimate," and that the U.S. "is gradually backing away from a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate." On 6/15/10, he wrote that the new estimate "is likely to back away from some of the conclusions in the earlier document." On 3/27/10, he wrote that the 2007 NIE's key conclusion "is also being rewritten." On 1/2/10, he wrote, "Mr. Obama's top advisers say they no longer believe the key finding of a much disputed National Intelligence Estimate about Iran." As of today, the New York Times has not corrected such misinformation or tried to explain it.
As for the 2007 NIE: the NYT's reporting gives exhaustive coverage to criticisms of the 2007 NIE and information that seems to contradict it. Sanger rarely referred to the NIE estimate without the adjective "much-disputed"-- not pointing out that within the United States, it's politicians and media pundits who dispute it quite predictably, not U.S. intelligence organizations that voted for it 16-0 and reconfirmed it in 2011.
As late as November 6, 2011, Sanger has sentences like this: "the report has been widely criticized as flawed." Note the absence of any reference to the 2011 NIE as recently as last November in a context where it should have been mentioned! And in this story from a month ago he put the emphasis on its being "widely criticized as flawed" rather than its having been re-affirmed.