As an exercise in judging the torrent of political propaganda that's spewed at us from all sides in these tenuously United States, here are two articles covering the same subject; President Trump's decision to withdraw US forces from the area of Syria near the Turkish border, to avoid getting involved in a shooting war with the Turks over the Kurds. (We've spoken of his decision before, here and here. Basically, I think it was correct.) They offer very different perspectives.
The New York Times thinks the President got it disastrously wrong, and has endangered US prestige, policies and security as a result.
President Trump’s acquiescence to Turkey’s move to send troops deep inside Syrian territory has in only one week’s time turned into a bloody carnage, forced the abandonment of a successful five-year-long American project to keep the peace on a volatile border, and given an unanticipated victory to four American adversaries: Russia, Iran, the Syrian government and the Islamic State.
Rarely has a presidential decision resulted so immediately in what his own party leaders have described as disastrous consequences for American allies and interests. How this decision happened — springing from an “off-script moment” with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, in the generous description of a senior American diplomat — probably will be debated for years by historians, Middle East experts and conspiracy theorists.
But this much already is clear: Mr. Trump ignored months of warnings from his advisers about what calamities likely would ensue if he followed his instincts to pull back from Syria and abandon America’s longtime allies, the Kurds. He had no Plan B, other than to leave. The only surprise is how swiftly it all collapsed around the president and his depleted, inexperienced foreign policy team.
. . .
Out of necessity, the Kurds switched sides on Sunday, turning their backs on Washington and signing up with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a man the United States has called a war criminal for gassing his own people ... And over the weekend, State and Energy Department officials were quietly reviewing plans for evacuating roughly 50 tactical nuclear weapons that the United States had long stored, under American control, at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, about 250 miles from the Syrian border, according to two American officials. Those weapons, one senior official said, were now essentially Erdogan’s hostages.
There's more at the link.
It's worth noting that the NYT classifies its own article as "News Analysis" rather than a news report. An analysis can bring in extraneous opinion, and isn't limited to the facts - something useful to propagandists, who know that readers may not find it easy - or may not even bother - to distinguish between the two categories.
Also, I find it curious that the NYT article mentions the nuclear weapons based in Turkey. They're assigned to NATO, so to a certain extent, the US can't act independently in moving them; we have to consult with our treaty partners. They've been a question-mark in NATO's relationship with Turkey for some time, but so far no-one has suggested that they're a political trump card (you should pardon the expression) for either side. I don't think they are. It's too easy to disable them by removing key components; in fact, I'll be very surprised if they're stored in a ready-for-use configuration. I'm willing to bet some critical components have been removed, and may already be out of the country. What's more, there's nothing about those weapons that is new or top-secret. They're all decades-old designs, well-known to friend and foe alike. I think that the NYT mentioning them is nothing more or less than a red herring, designed to provoke a knee-jerk reaction to President Trump's policies from the anti-nuclear-weapons crowd.
Be that as it may, The Last Refuge, generally a pro-Trump source, has a very different perspective on his policies toward Turkey.
President Trump has played this out perfectly. By isolating Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and effectively leaving him naked to an alliance of his enemies, Erdogan is now urgently asking for the U.S. to mediate peace negotiations with Kurdish forces.
This request happens immediately after President Trump signed an executive order [See Here] triggering the sanction authority of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. Erdogan called the White House requesting an urgent phone call with President Trump.
After President Trump talked to Kurdish General Mazloum Kobani Abdi, the commander of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, President Trump then discussed the options available to President Erdogan. As a result of that conversation, Erdogan requested the U.S. mediate negotiations. Vice-President Mike Pence announces he will be traveling to the region with National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien to lead that effort.
Again, more at the link.
Who to believe? Who's got it right? Who's telling the truth about President Trump's policies in Syria and towards the Kurds, and who's lying?
The answer is, of course, that neither article has it completely correct. A great deal of the information coming out of the Middle East is suspect, heavily influenced by partisan perspectives there and here. However, there are three important elements to watch for when trying to determine what's propaganda, and what's fact.
- What's the pattern? Has a source been consistently reliable, accurate and truthful in its reporting about a person or subject, or has its coverage been generally biased and one-sided? If the latter, its trustworthiness takes a knock.
- Does the source's reporting match what's happening on the ground? This can be difficult to determine in real time, so it may be necessary to look at past reports and analyze whether they matched the facts as they emerged. Again, if a pattern of accurate reporting takes shape, that's good. If it doesn't, that's bad. In general, one should suspend judgment until the facts are clear. In this case, the facts on the ground are murky, to say the least, and are not helped in the least by deliberately false reports in local and international news media. (ABC News, take a bow. If that report was "mistaken" or "inaccurate", I'll eat my hat. No, it was deliberate propaganda, and you were caught red-handed. You even edited out from the video people holding cellphones, so it would look more realistic! You deserve the egg on your face.)
- Is the language objective, or subjective? Is the way in which the incident(s) and/or person(s) is/are described factual, unbiased and neutral, or is it designed to evoke a particular emotion, attitude or reaction? What descriptive words and phrases are used, and what is the author's and/or editor's intention in using them? That, in itself, tells us a lot.
Obviously, in the two examples above, both have elements of propaganda in them. However, when analyzed according to the three principles above, it's clear that one is more propaganda than reporting, while the other is more factual. There's also a consistent pattern of that in both outlets' reporting, where one prefers to offer opinions without specific references to prove them, while the other backs up its opinions with references whenever possible. I don't fully trust either outlet, but I certainly trust one more than the other, based upon that evidence. Nevertheless, I'll double-check both, just to be sure.
We simply can't trust the mainstream media, and much of the alternative media, to be completely honest and trustworthy any longer. It's up to us to be far more discerning in accepting the "news" and "facts" with which we're bombarded, and reserve judgment until we have enough of a factual foundation to make one.
(BTW, for another, somewhat contrarian perspective on what's going on in Syria and the results of the US withdrawal, see here. It's interesting - and again proves my point about judging carefully.)
Peter
9 comments:
"We simply can't trust the mainstream media, and much of the alternative media, to be completely honest and trustworthy any longer."
In point of fact, we never could. That entire myth of the 'objective media' is one of the most effective lies the Progressive Left ever told. There was a time when everyone smart enough to make it to the corner store without a minder knew that every news source e has a bias, and to make allowances for it. H. L. Mencken makes it clear in his writing on his life as a Reporter that in his day, most cities of any size had at least two newspapers; one that supported the party locally in power (which got the government printing contracts, and therefore made money) and one that supported the opposition (which was usually supported by some wealthy individual with ambitions).
Concur with Dov, the nukes aren't there anymore. And as you point out, those pesky facts tend to upset the propaganda applecart...
And, really, since when haven't the western Kurd switched sides for their convenience, sometimes even in the middle of fighting (or so it seems.)
Western Kurds have been a thorn in civilization's side for too long. The eastern ones are just a tad better, at least they tend not to be commies and tend to want to just stay in their lands, tend to, that is.
As soon as ISIS was pretty much gone, the western Kurds started doing what they've always done, raiding their supposed allies and others. It's like trusting the cartels in Mexico to play fair. Um, no.
And NYT? People still read that thing?
Be nice if they would report the facts, and then offer their opinion on the facts separately, even if in the same article.
The only thing to do is use a broad range of reports on facts, including source material like DoD press releases and transcripts, and cross check them. Read a broad cross section of opinion, and form your own.
All the while knowing the fog of war makes actual actions, strategic considerations make tactical decisions and the forest for the trees, are all in effect making things murky. As well as time making opinion outdated very quickly.
Now Turkey and the Kurds are negotiating. Was that the goal of our actions, get our troops out of the way of inevitable conflict and allow the two sides enough rope to come crawling back to us?
As far as ABC report of the Turkey shoot at Knob Creek, they used an anonymous source "close to the action." This leads me to believe ABC fell for Kurdish disinformation.
All through the weekend, even commenting that I couldn't be certain who fired the shell that exploded near our S.F. troops, I was being accused of being a Kurdish bot. The DRIVE TO WAR was apparent in a lot of peoples posts, and I have to wonder what was behind it. Turkey may not be the best ally in NATO, but they're still an ally in NATO. Some of those Kurdish "allies" are really just mercenaries, in which case we don't owe them our lives protecting them.
And another thing is, perhaps there's no one right way of dealing with the situation we find ourselves in Syria. I'd say in that case, getting our troops out of harms way, while keeping tabs on ISIS is a better move then many alternatives.
I despise, detest, and distrust the NYT. The WaPoo, too.
Did Assad really gas his own people?
Besides, I can't keep with all the 'Hitlers' allegedly roaming around the world these days that US intervention is supposed to solve or something like that. What's for dinner tonight?
The question should be,
Did Assad has his own tribe?
>Did Assad really gas his own people?
And the answer seems to be chlorine gas, is not considered legally poison gas.
The scene from Lawrence Arabia has been mentioned, where his guide is killed. The explanation is his tribe is nothing and not allowed to drink from that well.
looking for that silver lining???? consider this: what to do with all those ISIL/Isis prisoners that the main actors had in jail or had just escaped. none on the main actors in the scenario are friends with prisoners or their families. in typical mideast fashion, they will be killed when found along with any of the family members of the prisoners. It is the Assad way or the highway. none of the kurds, turks, syrians, iranians, iraqis none of them are isils friend. as you read this, they are being turned into what President Adams once referred to as "manure".
now I ask, do you think it is a bit harsh to find that to be a silver lining in an otherwise bleak scene?
perhaps it is just an "unintended consequence" of the leadership realising what an absolute no win situation syria, the kurds and turkey are in and not having a really good reason the have US Forces to be in jeopardy for zero gain. Finally, someone made a move instead of just talking about it.
Those players in that madhouse will either learn to get along with one another or they will kill all of each other unless someone externalizes a new threat to all of them. and who do you think will come and stir the pot?
Post a Comment