Posts
BUSTED!
Supposed Syrian Activist Group Feeding News to Big Media Exposed as a
British-Run FAKE NEWS Factory
Western
media has been getting its stories from a clandestine British
government propaganda plant paying out salaries of up to $17,000
8
December, 2016
The
Revolutionary Forces of Syria (RFS) media office, a major Syrian
opposition media outfit and frequent source of information for
Western media, is funded by the British government and is managed by
Westerners operating out of Turkey, according to emails provided to
AlterNet by a Middle East reporter RFS tried to recruit.
The
outlet stirred controversy this November when it released a video at
the height of the Mannequin
Challenge,
a pop culture craze in which people compete for how long they can
freeze in place on video. The RFS video depicted a staged rescue by
the White Helmets, the Western-funded rescue
group that operates exclusively in rebel-held territory. RFS quickly
removed the video and issued an apology out of apparent concern that
the staged rescue could raise questions about the authenticity of
other videos by the White Helmets.
Over
the summer, the Middle East reporter, who asked not to be named, was
contacted by an American acquaintance and former colleague about
working for RFS.
“I'm
currently in Istanbul, working on a media project for the HMG [the
British government],” wrote the acquaintance in an email
time-stamped June 23. “We're working on media surrounding the
Syrian conflict, as one of their three partners.” The email
included links to RFS Media’s English website and SMO
Media, an
Arabic website that covers the Southern Front, a Western-backed Free
Syrian Army (FSA) group.
“[W]e’re
looking for a managing editor/production manager to head up our team
here in Istanbul, and I thought you'd be a great fit. I was wondering
if you had any interest, or knew of anyone looking to move out to
Istanbul for an opportunity," the acquaintance added.
In
a followup phone conversation, the acquaintance explained to the
reporter what the job would entail.
“I
would have been talking to opposition people on the ground and
writing news pieces based on statements from media activists who are
affiliated with the armed groups in places like Aleppo,” the
reporter later explained.
The
salary offered for this task was an eye-popping $17,000 a month.
The
reporter ultimately decided not to pursue the RFS position because he
felt it would be journalistically unethical.
“The
idea that I would work for the government of a country that’s
intimately involved in the Syrian conflict is one that’s
incomprehensible for me as a journalist,” he told AlterNet.
“This
was far beyond working for state-owned media in my opinion. It was to
actually be a mouthpiece for specific armed groups that are backed by
a Western regime with a long history of disastrous interference in
this region. That doesn’t mean I don’t have sympathy for people
who are against the Syrian government. I am not pro-regime. At the
same time, I am a journalist and would like to maintain my integrity
at that level.”
The
reporter declined to recommend others for the job, saying, “I’m
not going to facilitate some dubious relationship between a reporter
and what is obviously a propaganda outlet,” he said.
RFS
did not respond to a request for comment.
Go-to
source for information-starved Western media
Western
media often relies on self-described “media activists” in areas
controlled by Western- and Gulf-backed militant groups, like Jabhat
al-Nusra (until recently Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria), Ahrar
al-Sham, Jaish al-Islam and Harakat
Nour al-Din al-Zenki.
These groups are explicitly anti-democratic and have been implicated
in human rights violations from mass execution to using caged
religious minorities as
human shields. Most recently, civilians fleeing rebel-held eastern
Aleppo have described being fired on by militants seeking to prevent
them from escaping to the safety of government-controlled territory.
Two
months ago, I spoke over the phone to a frequently quoted media
activist living in East Aleppo. He told me that if he publicly
criticizes the armed opposition groups, he risks being tortured, or
worse. Indeed, a largely ignored report by
Amnesty International published in June revealed that civilians in
opposition-controlled Aleppo and Idlib have been subjected to
abduction, torture and summary execution simply for criticizing armed
groups on social media.
RFS’s
videos and hashtags are regularly picked up by major Western media
outlets. One of its videos has even been cited by
human rights groups as evidence of Russian war crimes. Among its most
viral campaigns is #AvengersInAleppo,
which featured photos of children living in East Aleppo holding up
signs calling on Marvel comic book superheroes to save them. (East
Aleppo is controlled by a number of extremist groups led by Al
Qaeda’s renamed offshoot, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham.)
Prior
to that, RFS capitalized on the popularity of Pokémon Go to sell a
pro-interventionist message to Western audiences with photos of
children in opposition-controlled areas of Syria holding up photos of
Pokémon characters with messages calling for intervention. The
campaign garnered favorable media coverage from major outlets,
including the Guardian, the Washington
Post, CNN,
the Independent, Reuters,
and the BBC,
none of which have bothered to question the origins of RFS or similar
pro-opposition outlets.
A
$3 million British government propaganda campaign for Syria’s
rebels
RFS
Media is just one of several different propaganda outlets financed by
the U.K. Foreign Office. A recent investigation by
the Guardian revealed that the British Foreign Office Conflict and
Stability Fund has secretly pumped at least £2.4 million (over $3
million U.S.) into pro-rebel propaganda outfits based out of
Istanbul.
The
money began flowing after the British parliament voted against
bombing the Syrian government in late 2013. (RFS Media launched
in December
2013 in
both English and Arabic.)
The vote against war was attributed in large part to public pressure,
as citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, reluctant to overthrow yet
another Middle Eastern government after the disasters in Iraq and
Libya, mobilized against another campaign for Western regime change
in Syria.
After
the political defeat, the U.K. Foreign Office embarked on a
clandestine propaganda campaign to suppress the public’s anti-war
sensibility, hiring private contractors to “produce videos, photos,
military reports, radio broadcasts, print products and social media
posts branded with the logos of fighting groups, and effectively run
a press office for opposition fighters,” according to the Guardian.
The
purpose of the propaganda, euphemistically referred to as “strategic
communications” by the Foreign Office, is to clandestinely
“influence the course of the war by shaping perceptions of
opposition fighters” and provide “strategic communications and
media operations support to the Syrian moderate
armed opposition.”
Sanitizing
the armed opposition as “moderate” has been a difficult task to
be sure. While Western officials were well
aware of the
extremist and violently sectarian ideology that dominated the
opposition early in the conflict, they deliberately chose to
whitewash their atrocities in favor of weakening the Syrian
government. RSF Media has stayed true to that goal, portraying armed
groups as liberators and protectors adored
by the people living under them, a narrative Western media outlets
have enthusiastically echoed even as their own reporters
were kidnapped,
ransomed and even
shot by
Western-backed rebels.
This
has presented a puzzling contradiction in Syria coverage. On the one
hand, foreign reporters do not dare enter opposition areas for fear
of being abducted. Yet the same media outlets that refrain from
sending their reporters to opposition areas are comfortable
amplifying propaganda that comes out of these areas with almost zero
scrutiny, despite the fact that such information almost certainly
requires the approval of the armed groups they fear may kidnap
their reporters.
The
warped picture of Syria that has been provided to Western media
consumers is not the fault of the Syrian opposition, which is merely
advancing its own most immediate public relations needs without
regard for the objective truth, as combatants in war often do. It is,
however, a damning indictment of a media establishment that has
failed to scrutinize convenient pro-war narratives that serve their
own governments’ geopolitical interests.
Rania
Khalek is an independent journalist living in the Washington D.C.
area
Glenn
Greenwald Reveals How Pro-Clinton Trolls Originated Fake News Factory
8
December, 2016
In
her first public speech since conceding the election, Hillary Clinton
on Thursday denounced “fake news,” and called for Congress to
essentially censor the internet. The problem with Clinton’s
statements however, is that her own campaign led with the widespread
use of the same fake news she so roundly decries.
Clinton asserted in her Thursday speech that there is an “epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year.” She also stated that “fake news” can have “real-world consequences,” and that the issue, as she understands it, “isn’t about politics or partisanship.”
Clinton asserted in her Thursday speech that there is an “epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year.” She also stated that “fake news” can have “real-world consequences,” and that the issue, as she understands it, “isn’t about politics or partisanship.”
“It’s
a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly.” Clinton
said, adding, “Bipartisan legislation is making its way
through Congress to boost the government’s response
to foreign propaganda, and Silicon Valley is starting to grapple
with the challenge and threat of fake news. It’s
imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the
public sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent
lives.”
The
problem is, Clinton’s call for an end to free speech is
hypocritical, at best.
On
Friday, journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote an article for The Intercept
shining a light on fake news that was specifically crafted
to benefit the former First Lady in her unsuccessful
presidential campaign.
In
October, Greenwald noted, during the period in which
WikiLeaks was releasing emails from Clinton campaign chairman
John Podesta, the candidate’s campaign officials began lying to the
public, claiming that the emails were doctored, and should be
ignored. The claim was untrue, but was nonetheless faithfully
repeated by networks and news outlets that were friendly
with the Democratic candidate, such as MSNBC. ©
YOUTUBE/HIGH ENERGY Fox News Host Destroys Democratic Lawmaker Over
Russian Hacking Claims
Malcolm Nance
Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done.
“That
the emails in the WikiLeaks archive were doctored or faked –
and thus should be disregarded – was classic Fake News, spread not
by Macedonian teenagers or Kremlin operatives but by
established news outlets such as MSNBC, the Atlantic and
Newsweek,” Greenwald wrote.
“And,
by design,” he said, “this Fake News spread like wildfire
all over the internet, hungrily clicked and shared by tens
of thousands of people eager to believe it was true.
As a result of this deliberate disinformation campaign, anyone
reporting on the contents of the emails was instantly met
with claims that the documents in the archive had been
proven fake.”
Soon,
MSNBC’s so-called intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance began
spreading a rumor that “Trumpists” were altering documents
from the WikiLeaks release, and his falsehood spread
like wildfire as well.
But
the screengrab Nance cited as his proof did not come
from supporters of the now President-elect, but from a
hardcore-Clinton supporter named Marco Chacon, who was using the
handle “the Omnivore” on Twitter.
Chacon
previously described himself, in an article for the Daily
Beast, as a creator of “fake viral news” who targeted Trump
and Bernie Sanders supporters. Chacon claimed that he created fake
anti-Clinton controversy to discredit those who cited it. He
never expected Clinton supporters to be the ones who fell
for it.
"I
think one of the things that has happened is that so many
reporters, especially now, are so devoted to one of the
candidates, particularly Hillary Clinton, that they’re not actually
interested in any news stories that they perceive don’t
directly help her to win,” Greenwald told Sputnik Radio
in October
The article from Glenn Greenwald
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.