Fake News By Omission — The Mass Media’s Cowardly Distortion Tool

Western mass media have continued their conspiracy of silence on the OPCW scandal, making no significant mention yet this month of the leaks which have been emerging from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons indicating that the US, France and UK bombed Syria last year in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack which probably never occurred, and that OPCW leadership helped cover it up.

If you haven’t been following the still-unfolding OPCW scandal, you can catch up quickly by watching this seven-minute video.

Dan Cohen

✔@dancohen3000

A leaked email accuses the OPCW of doctoring a report to suit the US government’s justification for its illegal bombing of Syria in April 2018. I explain the scandal mainstream media is trying to supress:

1 585

06:49 - 28 нояб. 2019 г.

Информация о рекламе в Твиттере и конфиденциальность

1 093 человек(а) говорят об этом

Mass media’s silence on this hugely important story is noteworthy not just because it has far-reaching consequences for the future of the Syrian regime change agenda and for public trust in US-led war narratives, not just because the leaks have already been independently authenticated by the mainstream press, and not just because scandalous revelations about powerful entities are normally the sort of incendiary click fodder that makes a mainstream news editor hasten behind his desk to hide his arousal. It is also noteworthy because we’re being told by people in the know that even more leaks are coming.

“Much more to come about the censoring of the facts on Douma at the Poison Gas Watchdog OPCW,” tweeted journalist Peter Hitchens earlier today. “It really is time that the Grand Unpopular Press and the BBC, realised this is a major story. Are they too proud to admit they might have been wrong?”

Hitchens, who was among the very first to publish the leaked internal OPCW email last month revealing multiple glaring plot holes in the official narrative about the alleged chlorine gas attack in Douma, Syria, has been saying this for a while now.

“More is known by the whistleblowers of the OPCW than has yet been released, but verification procedures have slowed down its release,” Hitchens wrote in his blog last week. “More documents will, I expect, shortly come to light.”

So this is still an unfolding story that is only going to get more scandalous in the coming days. Yet rather than reporting on an important news story (which it may surprise you to learn is actually supposed to be the literal job description of the news media), the mainstream press has been silent. The only times the mass media have commented on this major story has been to spin it as Russian disinformation, and Tucker Carlson’s segment on it last week which was also falsely spun as disinfo by establishment narrative managers like David Brock’s Media Matters for America.

Left I on the News@leftiblog

It may be hard for some to grasp this concept, but not telling people about something that *did* happen gives them just as incorrect knowledge about reality as does telling them something did happen which actually did not. That's why "fake news" (by omission) is the right term. https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1202035505568698369 …

Caitlin Johnstone @caitoz

Con artists prefer lies by omission because they are cowards and they would prefer not to look you in the eye while lying. The same is true for the MSM. Omissions like not reporting on OPCW leaks are the same as straight-up lies. It’s fake news by omission (h/t @leftiblog).

49

06:56 - 4 дек. 2019 г.

Информация о рекламе в Твиттере и конфиденциальность

28 человек(а) говорят об этом

The blog Left I on the News uses the term “fake news by omission” to describe this obnoxious yet ubiquitous propaganda tactic, where imperial media outlets deliberately distort people’s understanding of what’s going on in the world by simply declining to cover news stories which are inconvenient to the establishment narrative.

Refusing to tell people about things that did happen distorts their worldview just as much as telling them things that did not happen, yet mass media will never be held accountable for engaging in the former, while engaging in the latter forces them to print embarrassing retractions and lose credibility with the public. For this reason, fake news by omission is their preferred tactic of deceit.

People sometimes think of the mainstream media as always straight-up lying all the time, just fabricating stories whole cloth about what’s going on, but that isn’t generally how it works. A good liar doesn’t lie all the time, and they don’t even tell full lies unless absolutely necessary. What they do is far more cowardly and far more effective: they spin, they distort, they tell half-truths, they emphasise insignificant details and marginalize significant ones, they uncritically report what government officials are telling them, and they lie by omission.

However, the total disappearance of the OPCW leaks is unusual for the legacy media. The imperial press have had their ways of hiding inconvenient stories since newspapers began. Running stories late on a Friday, running them on the “graveyard page” of page 2 (so-called because stories go there to die), holding on to them until another big story breaks so they can be published relatively unnoticed, waiting for them to be broken in a disreputable publication so people will be skeptical of it (sometimes known as “fixing” a story), or running an oppositional op-ed at the same time to spin the uncomfortable facts in a more salubrious way. But in the end, they normally run the story, in one way or another, so they can be seen not to be censoring.

Not this time though. The exceptional silence on the OPCW scandal from imperial news media discredits them completely, but people won’t know about it unless they are told. Spread the word.

medium.com

Armenia in Crosshairs of Washington’s Tyranny

Finian CUNNINGHAM

Since a new government came to power last year in Armenia, the tiny South Caucasus nation has embarked on a non-aligned international policy. It has maintained strong historic ties with Russia but also says it wants to develop important relations with the European Union and the United States.

In a recent interview for the BBC, Armenia’s Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan was continually harangued about whether his country is going to align with the West or East. The BBC interviewer asserted that many Armenians want their nation to join the EU and NATO and inferred that if the government in Yerevan did not go down this route of joining the EU and/or NATO, then it was somehow backward and undemocratic.

The Armenian diplomat rejected the “bipolar” dilemma presented to him. He said his country’s top priority was to “not build relations with one partner at the expense of others”. Mnatsakanyan reiterated that the government in Yerevan wanted to develop good relations with Russia and its Eurasian neighbors, as well as with the European Union and the US.

Here’s how the BBC’s Stephen Sackur framed his question (at 16 mins in interview): “Let’s get to a bigger picture now. It seems to me Armenia faces a strategic choice over the next few years. You’ve got your new government and you have to decide whether it is in the strategic interests of your country to put your priorities and your greatest effort into developing the relationship with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union… Or if you actually refocus your efforts looking West to join the European Union and to join NATO in the long run. Which [are] you going to do?”

The arrogant BBC journalist continually foisted the choice of either being with the West as a zero-sum matter of “being with us or against”. At one point, he goaded the Armenian top diplomat: “Bottomline you stay with Moscow.” The entire questioning was suffused with a bigoted mentality of Russophobia in which the BBC hack evidently operated on the prejudice that everything about “Putin’s Russia” is bad and malign. He even showed his poor journalistic standard by approvingly quoting former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her snide remark that “the Eurasian Economic Union is an attempt to re-Sovietize the region led by Vladimir Putin.”

The Armenian minister was warned with sinister implications by the interviewer that his country was “walking a very delicate tightrope” from which it could fall and become gravely injured. That sounded like an allusion to “regime change” dirty tricks in the pipeline.

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan bravely rebuffed the imperious demands for choosing sides. He remarked on the false premise of “either this way or that” and he chided the BBC bully, “Do not judge our democracy by our geopolitical choices.”

But the diplomat should have gone further in his disputation. He should have responded by asking his BBC interrogator why he insists on defining the world in stark terms of “us or them”? Why is it and how is it that the supposed bipolar division of the world is based on the premise that the West led by the US is good and the East led by Russia is bad?

This zero-sum mentality typical of Washington and its European allies has been often condemned by Russia, China and others as being anachronistic. It is essentially a Cold War mindset which is not compatible in contemporary world relations which are objectively moving towards multipolar coexistence of nations. The zero-sum Cold War mindset is typical of hegemonic politics aimed at propping up American dominance over international relations. The need for dominance is essential to operate US capitalist economic power.

As the world shifts to more multilateral economic cooperation, as seen primarily with China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the emergence of regional trading blocs, the United States and its European minions are trying to thwart that direction by insisting on countries making a false choice of aligning one way or the other.

We saw that in Ukraine where Washington and the EU piled the pressure on the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych during the 2013-2014 period to repudiate its relations with Russia and to join the Western powers. That culminated in the CIA-backed coup in February 2014 and nearly five years of an ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine.

We are also seeing it with regard to pressure from Washington on Turkey to abandon its improving relations with Russia, in particular Ankara’s purchase of the S-400 air defense system.

At a NATO meeting last week in Brussels, the US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said: “Turkey put us in a terrible position. We see them spinning closer into Russia’s orbit than into the Western orbit.”

America’s obsessive possessiveness is a tyranny that runs deeply through its foreign relations. Either nations are subservient to Washington or they are cast as reprobates that must be brought to heel, either through economic sanctions, covert destabilization, regime change, or war.

The US maintains sanctions on Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and others for the simple reason that such countries are not subservient to American demands. The sanctions on Iran are perhaps the most illustrative of US hegemonic dictate. Washington demands that all countries obey by its unlawful embargo on Iranian oil exports. Again, it’s the mentality of “with us or against us”.

This zero-sum ultimatum has been imposed on Armenia by the Trump administration even though Armenia has long historical and cultural ties with Iran. Landlocked Armenia with a population less than three million is developing joint gas pipeline projects with Iran which will be crucial to the former’s economic development.

Armenia, a former Soviet republic, has strong and enduring economic ties with its neighbors of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan as part of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). It is also a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), along with Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Armenia derives vital security guarantees as a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CTSO) also comprising Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

It is simply ludicrous to impose a demand on Armenia to choose between “East and West”. It has centuries of relations with its Eurasian neighbors, Russia in particular.

It is of course entirely reasonable that Yerevan wants to pursue a multilateral policy of friendship between East and West. But America’s hegemonic imperialism is such that it requires a false choice to be made. It is the zero-sum imposition of that choice that creates problems, tensions and ultimately conflict. Armenia is being made to walk a dangerous tightrope when it shouldn’t have to. That is the fate of those who encounter Washington’s bullying zero-sum tyranny.

Finian CUNNINGHAM

Former editor and writer for major news media organizations. He has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages

The Real Reason Why the West Is Upset Over the Syria-Turkey Debacle

Cynthia CHUNG

In tense world situations like this it is easy to get caught up in wave after wave of headlines as we are hourly updated on what is supposedly happening in a region that we really can’t rely on for ‘accurate’ timely reporting. In addition, there is the very problematic issue of a constant and very conscious intent to misinform the public as to what is going on and even resort to fallacious, fabricated, information in order to escalate tension rather than de-escalate.

Notorious examples of this include the accused chemical attacks claimed to have been done by President Assad on the Syrian people, accusations that were caught in a web of lies committed by the Western press and the Obama administration. There have also been continual lies on the source of funding and training of the terrorist groups in these areas which is also largely dependant on the West for its function and existence, not to mention the cases of Libya and Iraq and all the lying that is ongoing on those subjects.

The first question I would ask myself then is why is the Western press so concerned over the lives of the Kurdish people, when they have never cared about all the murder and terror going on against the Syrian people, the Yemeni people, the Libyan people and the Iraqi people that has led to a horrific level of death and an enormous refugee crisis which has largely been ignored by the West. In fact, the only time Western governments and media show some level of human concern is when there is an intention to intervene militarily in these areas.

The topic of the Kurdish peoples’ welfare is the number one topic in the news and even the US Democrat presidential candidate debates. The same Democrats who, with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, would rather go to war with Russia than work with Russia to attain peace in the Middle East.

The reason for this extreme level of passion and concern for the Kurdish people is said to be because they helped the US fight the terrorists in Syria…the same terrorists that the US was largely implicated in training and transferring into Syria, the so-called ‘moderate rebels’. This was a rather unsustainable circular pattern, which if carried out for long enough would have resulted in the erasure of the Kurdish fighters in that region due to the US’ direct support for the very terrorists they were fighting, something the Democrats don’t want to bring attention to.

But now there is massive uproar that the Kurdish people are being slaughtered in North-East Syria by the Turkish military. ABC News was at the forefront in the exposure of this terrible genocide showing footage that was claimed to be of the Kurdish massacre. It turned out to be a video from April 2017 of a Kentucky gun-range show. ABC News has apologised for their ‘mistake’ and ho hum let’s go on as if there isn’t something deeply concerning going on. The desperation to rile up Western outcry over this issue should raise suspicion.

When in Doubt Look Toward Putin

President Putin is without a doubt the most competent person in the world to know how best to handle this ‘situation’, which is much more complicated than a simple condemnation of Erdogan or Trump’s seemingly blasé abandonment of the Kurdish people.

In the October 17th weekly briefing by the Russian Federation, Maria Zakharova was asked in the Q&A section what Russia’s thoughts were on the EU meeting that occurred on Oct 14th discussing the North-East Syrian situation. Zakharova’s response to this question of the EU’s role in the conflict resolution in Syria was basically…that it was non-existent and thus a non-issue from the standpoint of a constructive agenda. She went on to say that she could have provided a more diplomatic response to this question but if it were not for the millions of people who are indeed suffering who do not even have the opportunity to hear the statement given by the EU High Representative about her involvement in their destinies and in their fate. Zakharova ended by stating that “the years of which this conflict has evolved and the consequences of this conflict as well as the evident results of certain countries involvement in the conflict, allow us [Russia] today to forget about superficial tolerance and call things what they are.”

The strong message sent was therefore that the West has no place in the resolution of the Syrian – Turkey conflict, but rather, that this will be resolved by an agreement between Erdogan and Assad with Russia as the mediator.

Interestingly, Putin’s meeting with Erdogan that occurred on Tuesday Oct 22 resulted in an agreement that the Kurdish fighters would have to move 30 km away from the border area in northeast Syria within 150 hours, and that this 150 hour time period would begin at noon on Wednesday. It was also agreed that both Russian and Syrian troops would control the rest of the border with joint patrols with the Turkish military occurring on the northeast Syrian border area.

There is an obvious long-term plan here, and the US military is not physically sticking its nose in it. So why is everyone so upset again over the US military leaving this region?

The Real Reason for the West’s Emotional Fervour

It should not be news for anyone at this point that Syria is part of the Western geopolitical regime-change warfare that is leading to an eventual direct confrontation with Russia, if successful. This has always been the plan, and started with the toppling of the Iraqi government, followed by the Libyan government and the attempt to overthrow the government of Syria, which has been saved purely due to the intervention of Russia. The plan was to cause an increasing level of chaos that would reach a peak level of mayhem along the Russian border, and like a swarm of wasps one would not be able to identify who stung who and amongst the confusion could easily lead to full scale war. However, the orchestrators of this plan have seriously under-estimated the Russians, in not only their intelligence gathering capabilities, their military strength but also in their very wise diplomatic resolutions and patience for long-term peace plans.

This Western confrontation against Russia would also be backed by NATO’s setting up of ‘defense systems’ in their members’ territories. Turkey is among the absolutely vital strategic regions for the placement of these weapons systems. Therefore, it is no surprise that NATO and the American military industrial complex are very concerned over Erdogan’s succumbing to the strategic advising of Putin. With the recent purchase by Turkey of the S-400 Russian missile system this past summer, which went ahead despite threats by NATO that they would no longer consider Turkey an ally, the balance in the Middle East is increasingly abandoning the West in favour of the Russia-China alliance.

At this point, I think it highly unlikely that Erdogan is under any illusion of how his Western counterparts truly regard the role of Turkey in this fiasco, which is the same poisoned honey they having been dripping into the ears of anyone in the Middle East who has held the grand delusion of becoming a super power as the favourite pet of Britain and the US, and that the reality is that these wannabe demi-gods of the Middle East are completely dispensable and in fact the plan by their Western ‘allies’ is to dispense of them at some point, the uncertainty is just exactly when.

When Erdogan announced an apology to Russia for shooting down the Russian fighter jet in Syrian air in June 2016, there was an attempted coup d’état against Erdogan by a faction of the Turkish Armed Forces orchestrated by US asset Fethullah Gülen only days later. This was no coincidence in timing and Erdogan to the surprise of everyone…survived (it is said only due to receiving intelligence from the Russians merely hours before the actual coup). The West has been a little insecure about where Turkey stands ever since, after all, what can be said when you find yourself in the awkward situation of having to continue relations with someone you tried to dispose of, “Hey I am really sorry about that time I lost my temper and tried to have you brutally killed…But we’re good now right?”. Erdogan is fully aware that Russia is Turkey’s only solution to getting out of its hostage situation under NATO.

So why is there so much uproar against Trump’s decision to remove the US military from Syria?

Because, the presence of the US military was the last controlled hold-out to furthering instability in that area. I think we can all agree that it is not in the interest of Turkey, Syria, the Kurdish fighters nor Russia to have these terrorist cells in the northeast region of Syria activated, it would only be in the interest of the US military, which has been its function there from the get go. The Russian military is fully capable of managing what remains of this clean-up job, nobody needs the US’ continued presence there. And the US military should further remove its presence in any country that does not welcome it.

As some journalists on Strategic Culture have already acknowledged, there is a situation going on within the US that is pretty much equivalent to that of a second civil war. This has been further confirmed by Project Veritas’ expose thanks to a CNN whisteblower, where CNN was caught enforcing the agenda to push the impeachment of Trump on the American people, above all other news. In addition, there is a clear intention from one side to go to war with Russia, and there is another side that does not. Trump despite his distasteful choosing of words and concerning personal beliefs on certain subjects, clearly does not want to go to war with Russia and that is the number one issue in the world because no one will be unaffected by such a catastrophic outcome if there is war. Any drama that is cooked up by the Western press has at this point a near 100% certainty that they are trying to rile up a sentiment to go to war, most notably with the ongoing Russia Gate hoax, the British orchestrated alternate dimension of the Skripal case and the present Ukraine-Gate absurdity.

President Putin is leading one of the most challenging diplomatic situations in history. We should be confident when the Russians say that they don’t need anyone else’s nose in this and we should rather be weary that the largest threat to stability in this region is if the West, notably the US, succeeds in revving up a fervour for another foreign military occupation.

Cynthia CHUNG

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada).