If the Syrian regime would allow foreign journalists into the country they wouldn’t have to depend on external sources.

I agree the regime should let the, albeit hostile, Western media in. But it’s not true to say we need to rely on external sources. Mary Fitzgerald is in Aleppo, as are quite a few others who have sneaked into Syria. Michael Jansen is in Damascus – she lives there. Plus there are a whole host of bloggers and citizen journalists one can check on for info., all of whom are inside Syria.

All of the above are imperfect but far superior sources than some guy in his bedroom in Coventry.

Once again “Mattoid” has failed in his accuracy on the Syrian crisis. Open the Irish Times and you will find Mary Fitzgerald reporting from Aleppo, and many like her embedded with the so called ‘rebels’ but fortunately unlike these others offer a broader picture. Alex Thompson (Channel 4 News) who has just fininhed a stint in Damascus and despite some questionable reporting offered this on his last day: “no evidence of food or fuel shortages whatsoever in Damascus . And like Homs, zero sign of popular uprising against regime”

I tweeted this to the journal yesterday and got no response…

https://twitter.com/obrienbarry/status/230778718526783489

Hello all,

Regarding your concerns raised here….

We report information and use copy that we obtain from reputable and respected news agencies like AFP and AP. Where possible and subject to our own resources we attempt to refer and link to material and information gathered by journalists on the ground if it is the case that AFP and AP do not themselves have reporters on the ground.

You see evidence of this in this very piece where we quote Martin Chulov who is in Syria at the minute.

With regards to not covering the allegations and video of Syrian rebels apparently executing security forces yesterday we didn’t report it then because we simply didn’t get to it. But we have covered it today with sufficient detail and links where possible, as far as I am concerned.

Thanks,

Hugh

AP, AFP and Reuters are no more reputable and respected than Xinhua, Russia Today and PressTV. They are propaganda organs and selective news aggregators for their respective NATO supporting governments.

George, you are a one man operation yourself… Ironic don’t you think.

All of us here are one man/woman operations, Declan. But international media are not using us as reliable sources on a conflict half a world away from where we’re posting.

@Stephen
I think we all want to know the facts of what is happening on the ground, but this can never happen until the regime permits full and open access to journalists – whilst they are forced to work clandestinely we are inevitably only getting part of the picture. I can’t see where anything there is inaccurate?

When journalists working clandestinely on the ground have provided information you do not like you have just dismissed it as western propaganda – I am still awaiting your reply from another thread, but in case you missed it, here is my post again:

“Do yourself a favour and follow this link:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-look-back-at-the-houla-massacre-in-syria-a-845854.html

Take your time and read the documented stories of named survivors whose family members were killed. Ask yourself why Syrian army officers in the Houla area subsequently defected to the FSA if those very people had just carried out a massacre of civilians in their own town?
Above all, ask yourself why the Syrian regime will not allow foreign journalists into the country to investigate the truth of what is happening on the ground. Truth is indeed the first casualty in war, but it is entirely within the power of the regime to expose any FSA ‘lies and propaganda’ for the world to see, and yet they refuse to do this. Why?”

After you then dismissed Der Spiegel as a western propaganda arm (whilst at the same time congratulating other similar German media outlets for providing an accurate picture of the situation on the ground), I provided you with further information about Der Spiegel:

“As of 2010, Der Spiegel was employing the equivalent of 80 full-time fact checkers, which the Columbia Journalism Review called “most likely the world’s largest fact checking operation”.

In addition, Der Spiegel has been a consistent supporter of Wikileaks – hardly the actions of a pro-US propaganda outlet, but don’t let that spoil your theory…”

Please address the inconsistency in your position.

Mattoid, the whole world and it’s mother knows that there are certain western countries supporting the rebellion. We also know, as the Americans have already said, that they are finding it extremely difficult to get their clandestine operatives into Syria. From the Syrian government’s point of view, allowing western journalists in will give an avenue to CIA operatives to enter the country.

However, if you do a quick google search you will find that there are some political journalists and bloggers on the ground in Syria that are reporting what is really going on and are far more reliable than the self-admitted anti-Assad one man show in England that is the ‘Syrian Observatory of Human Rights’.

Paul, read above what Reuters said about summary executions by the rebels and secret orders signed by Obama. Does this sound like the actions of a pro-western propaganda outlet? Seriously?

@Barry:
1) Yes, it is a fair point that the Syrian regime may have concerns about giving free access to foreign ‘journalists’ who may be operatives posing as journalists, but even supervised access would be better than no access, especially if the regime feels that an inaccurate picture is being painted by western media. Surely they should welcome the opportunity for their side of the story to be told?

2) “We also know, as the Americans have already said, that they are finding it extremely difficult to get their clandestine operatives into Syria”
What is your source for this, given that the American government have neither confirmed nor denied the presence of their operatives on the ground?

3) “However, if you do a quick google search you will find that there are some political journalists and bloggers on the ground in Syria that are reporting what is really going on and are far more reliable than the self-admitted anti-Assad one man show in England that is the ‘Syrian Observatory of Human Rights’”
You mean people like the Der Spiegel journalists I mentioned above?

Mattoid, with regards to point 2, I can’t remember the exact article I saw a few weeks ago but a quick google search gives this: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/24/world/la-fg-syria-cia-20120725

In regards to point 3, I’ve read that article as its been posted in journal comments before and I think the jury is still out on that one because as far as i know it contradicts many other sources, including other German publications whose source is the German intelligence service.

@Mattoid I will give you the courtesy of a reply, but I’m not sure what the point is you are making. You talk about the media not being allowed in Syria, but provide Der Spiegel reportage from Syria to back up another point.
On the subject of the so-called Houla Massacre I suggest this to you. If you send any Media team to a conflict zone whose intention is to smear the country’s President they will have no problem finding useful dupes. The BBC and others have had to retract their lies on Houla, this is common knowledge, look it up. As for Der Spiegel, what I pointed out in the comment you refer to is that BND (German Intelligence) investigated these matters, found the reporting to be false and major German media like Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), Die Welt and Das Bild reported that fact: Writing in Bild, longtime German war correspondent Jurgen Todenhofer accused the rebels of “deliberately killing civilians and then presenting them as victims of the government“. He described this “massacre-marketing strategy” as being “among the most disgusting things that I have ever experienced in an armed conflict“. Todenhofer had recently been to Damascus, where he interviewed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for Germany’s ARD public television.
I hope this answers some of your points.

@Barry
Thanks for that link. If (very big if) the story is true, then it undermines the position of those who are claiming that there is proof that the US is training, arming, paying and directing rebel groups.

I will address the Der Spiegel story in a comment below…

Stephen, What I am saying is that Assad has not allowed western journalists into Syria – any that are there (including the two Der Spiegel journalists) are there illegally. This means that their movements in the country are severely restricted.

They are doing a very valuable job but inevitably they are limited in what they can access and this makes it very difficult to determine the truth of the situation on the ground. The accuracy (or otherwise) of information which comes from Human Rights Watch (or similar sources) and indeed the Assad regime itself is very difficult to verify in these circumstances.

Contrary to what you may think, I do not have any particular agenda for or against either side in this conflict – I am just interesting in knowing the truth of what is happening. I believe the rebels have committed atrocities, just as I also believe there is ample evidence that the regime have suppressed, tortured and murdered their own citizens. I believe that the rebels are engaging in widespread propaganda, and I believe the regime is doing likewise. Propaganda is the norm in any conflict and the truth normally lies somewhere in between the information coming from either side.

What appears quite prevalent on the Journal though, are individuals who dismiss as propaganda anything which doesn’t suit their particular viewpoint or agenda, but accept without question anything which comes from the opposing side, and yes, it often seems to be anti-Assad/pro-rebel stories which are simply dismissed as US/western propaganda and pro-Assad/anti-rebel stories which are put forward as undisputed fact. I will always call this type of bias when I see it.

So with regard to Houla, I can’t see why you have accepted the Regime line that the rebels carried out the massacre there (with no actual evidence provided – unless you include journalists like Todenhofer who have simply ‘interviewed President Assad’ as evidence!) whereas when journalists with no particular agenda that we know of go to the area (albeit several weeks later when it was safe for western journalists to get there) and independently interview named, traceable and verifiable survivors (not ‘un-named sources’) and post the actual interview videos of their first-hand account of the massacre, you dismiss it as western propaganda. The double standard is breathtaking!

The difference between the Der Spiegel journalists and the other sources you mentioned is that the other sources were never on the ground in Houla and simply quoted “un-named sources” for their stories, whereas the Der Spiegel journalists were the first to visit Houla since the massacre (apart from a brief UN visit accompanied by Alex Thompson the following day) and have named, traceable and videotaped sources for their story.

The bottom line is do you know for sure who carried out the massacre? No.
Do I know for sure who carried out the massacre? No.
Do the UN know for sure who carried out the massacre? No (they said after their brief visit that there was insufficient evidence to conclude who was responsible).
Could Assad have allowed journalists into the Houla area in the aftermath of the massacre to investigate the truth of what had occurred there and interview survivors? Yes, but he refused to do so despite claiming that the rebels were responsible.
Could the Der Spiegel journalists have been duped by people who were posing as surviving family members of those who were massacred? Yes, its possible, but they would be found out quite quickly when the false interviews were posted online for the world to see.

Personally I prefer to believe information from people who have been on the ground, spoken to residents and interviewed survivors on camera, over others who have been nowhere near the area, quote ‘un-named sources’ and simply repeat what the regime told them.

The link I posted is just one of many to be found in google. I’m trying to think back and it could possibly even be the journal that i saw the article. With regards to undermining the NATO operatives helping terrorists point, that’s also well known and admitted. Just that they are helping them from Turkey and are finding it hard to infiltrate much further than rebel held areas.

But I completely agree when you say that not much reporting is trustworthy in regards to this conflict. You’ll find in the links I posted below some sources that are actually on the ground in Syria or named their sources on the ground in Syria. And some, such as Fisk, cannot be denied as a trustworthy journalist! It’s such a chore to shift through so much crap online in order to try and find grains of truth :(

Stephen, the type of inconsistency I was referring to is well illustrated by your assertion that Alex Thomson has been guilty of “some questionable reporting” and yet you then go on to quote him when it suits you. Presumably you only think his reporting is questionable when it doesn’t match your viewpoint?

Barry, if you have any proof that France, the UK, Israel or anyone else (with the exception of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar who have openly admitted it) have been directly supporting the rebels then can you please post it. Incidentally I believe that in all likelihood the US are supporting them, but as far as I’m aware there is no actual proof of that either (its not good enough just to say ‘its well known’…).

I have a lot of time for Robert Fisk and I would readily acknowledge that he has an in-depth insight into much of the middle-east and its issues, but he is also recognised by most neutrals as having a distinctly anti-US slant, and this should be kept in mind when listening to him or reading his pieces.

I’m on my phone now so posting lots of links on my phone is cumbersome. But have a look through the following google search.

http://www.google.ie/search?q=us+uk+assisting+syria+rebels&hl=en&biw=320&bih=416&sa=X&ei=mOUaULCLMMyBhQfGu4DwDw&ved=0CAwQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A30%2F7%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A30%2F7%2F2012&tbm=

Thanks for posting the link Barry, but all I see is a lot of speculation without any real evidence or proof. Not saying its not happening, just that it will take more than mere speculation to convince me.

@Mattoid Thanks for detailed reply. I will respond to your points when the time permits (with links) but as you know this adds to the research time, but I will get to it. In the meantime, just wanted to leave a note re your point on Alex Thompson. Thompson suggested in his twitter feed that the ‘Rebels’ only had access to small arms, which caused a stir on twitter, because it’s clear to anyone following the crisis that they’re using SAM’s and RPG’S among other heavy weapons. In fact, the reason The White House leaked to the Press yesterday re Obama acknowledging that he signed off months ago to covert action in Syria was because it was becoming impossible to maintain the lie that this was an indigenous uprising of the Syrian people who miraculously and suddenly found a way to provide themselves with sophisticated bombs and heavy weaponry.
So either Thompson was either being economical with the truth of extremely naive.

@Barry, Stephen & Paul
Given yesterday’s publication of the UN report following its lengthy investigation into events in Syria including the Houla massacre, will you now finally accept that regime forces and pro-Assad militias were responsible for the massacre of civilians in Houla, and any reports of the rebels carrying out the massacre were simply crude attempts at ‘massacre marketing’ propaganda by the regime?

Before you start talking about the UN being biased, can I remind you that it comprises 193 member states of all political ideologies, including Syria, Russia and China.

The UN report in full:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/409458-a-hrc-21-50-1.html#document/p7

Matt, I’m out of the country and have no wifi and woeful mobile signal so haven’t been keeping up to date beyond headlines. If I’ve been wrong then I’ll hold my hands up, but I won’t comment more until I know more about the situation.

@Barry
Fair enough.
We don’t always agree but we both like to base our arguments on available factual information instead of on speculation, innuendo and preconceptions. I have huge respect for you for that.

Petr, isn’t CNN a western media outlet? You are always critical of the western media but here you are using them as a source.

@Declan

Unlike Paul (above) I don’t think the Western media organisations and agencies are crude propaganda arms. In the case of Syria I think they have largely united around a flawed one-dimensional narrative of a murky and complex situation.

You’re right that I’m critical of the Western media but it doesn’t mean they’re always wrong or that they are wilfully wrong. There has been some great copy from Mary Fitzgerald and Michael Jansen in the Irish Times, for example. And this report from CNN is important as it shows what happens when militia take over a town. It’s not pretty I’m sure you’ll agree.

As someone has said, truth is the first casuality of war. What thejournal.ie has consistently been doing for some time now is lazily and exclusively reproducing the claims of Coventry based, Rami Abdulrahman, a.k.a. Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, via what Hugh O’Connell calls “the reputable and respected news agencies” of AP and AFP. Often an entire story is based on one of his claims. It’s like a sketch from Monty Python. It’s like that scene from the Woody Allen movie, “The Curse of the Jade Scorpion” where, Woody Allen, who plays an insurance investigator, gets his tip on how find the person who stole the jewels from an blind homeless man.

In a situation of war, it’s probably going to be impossible to get any impartial source. The embedded journalists in Syria, whether working under the protection of the regime, or those embedded with the rebels, are probably going to be biased too by virtue of being embedded. In that case, the best thejournal.ie can do is provide “a balance of propaganda”. Use Rami Abdulrahman’s claims but also look to Russian, Iranian and Chinese news sources for an alternative picture. Look to the Syrian government media too of course including what the embedded journalists are saying, whichever side of the battle line they are on.

In fairness a lot of those people killed were killed in combat. And I’m sure a lot of them were just collateral damage. This is a civil war. That means fighting and killing. By BOTH sides.

No you can’t, because there’s no way in the world the US could get heavy armour into Syria, obviously. But never let reason and common sense get in the way of some good prejudice, what?

I’m sorry Stephen but you’re looking for some sort of “collusion and bias” that is just not present in our reporting of the story.

Hugh, if you really believe that statement to be true, then you have not taken the time to investigate, and that is very sad.

With respect Stephen, I would have a better idea than yourself of whether or not there is some sort of collusion or bias in our reporting of the story. There isn’t and that’s a fact.

We use trusted and respected news agencies like AFP and AP who rarely, if ever, have been accused of some sort of bias or collusion in their reporting of a conflict except for perhaps Iraq where pretty much every news outlet got it wrong.

If you are suggesting some sort of bias and collusion in those agencies and their reporting of the story then I suggest you try to back that up with facts and take it up with them and prove your case. Otherwise your searching for something that just isn’t there.

Hugh, my opinion is that when it comes to Irish and European affairs the journal does provide fantastic and unbiased coverage – almost unparalleled in Ireland. However, when it comes to certain international affairs it comes across as a bit one-sided. I understand that you source much of the material from the AP and AFP. However with just trusting sources such as these without investigating their own sources can leave you with substandard reporting. It’s been proven and mentioned many times in the comments that the “Syrian Observatory of Human Rights’ is not a reliable source. How about:
http://www.independent.co.uk/biography/robert-fisk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/120719/not-everyone-hates-bashar-al-assad
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/120731/aleppo-christians-islamists-jihadis-al-qaeda-iraq-sectarian-conflict
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/syria/2469
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/scenes-propaganda-war-syria/2443
http://www.mintpress.net/us-proxy-al-qaida-death-squads-in-syria/
http://www.mintpress.net/intense-anti-assad-propaganda/

Hugh, I accept that there is no conscious collusion or bias on your behalf, my point is that these shortcomings are unwitting. The Associated Press gleans its material from the product of a handful of Major Media conglomerates who are in a corporate revolving door with the biggest suppliers of military hardware to the US Government. So it doesn’t take too much calculation to understand why, as you admit, you all got it wrong on Iraq. The reality is, just like today, you all bought into the corporate narrative, the only difference now is, that it should be easier to see this because of the availability of an enormous amount of independent information.
I believe it is your duty, as an editor of an otherwise (other than foreign affairs coverage) good and enjoyable news service, to look at this. This is an important issue, lives are at stake, and if we are to avoid another bloodbath like Iraq, it will be because the media remembers its noble duty to go to the ends of the earth to find out what’s real and what’s not. So far, this hasn’t happened in your reporting of Syria.

Stephen,

I am not the editor. If you have concerns about our editorial stance I suggest you raise them with Susan Daly: editor@thejournal.ie

Thanks,

Hugh

Hugh, please don’t take all this the wrong way. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of constructive criticism. Please have a look at the links I posted above and give your thoughts. They seem legit and reliable compared to the AP who for all we know are syndicating articles coming straight out of the Pentagon.