4 ms·

"Traditional news organizations" do this all the time. Take the recently leaked audio of John Kerry speaking to Syrian opposition: [1] And the New York Times,

"Traditional news organizations" do this all the time. Take the recently leaked audio of John Kerry speaking to Syrian opposition: [1] And the New York Times, CNN, etc coverage of it: [2] The New York Times, which shared the most of any news organization (only a couple minutes total) made a number of serious edits: - They include Kerry espousing the principles of Democracy, but not the fact that he was trying to convince the opposition (which does not want an election, including one overseen by the US) that they might want to have an election. - The New York Times completely avoids publishing Kerry say that the reason that Russia intervened in Syria was because if they hadn't Daesh was likely to take over the government; and that the US had been hoping to use the ISIS threat as leverage to negotiate American support within the Syrian government. - The New York Times edited out Kerry's admission that much of the Syrian opposition have allied themselves with "Nusra and Daesh": al Qaeda. - The clips of Kerry describing how a US invasion of Syria would be completely illegal, whereas Russia was legally invited by the government of Syria got dropped Etc. Or, if you're looking for something bigger than proxy war, remember the US coverage of the Snowden Documents? Their censorship of it for a decade as documents before Snowden Docs came out? The fact that most of the media organizations tried to report to Federal authorities than take the story originally? That the major networks towed the official line (even using it's language like "bulk collection") and repeated US denials of specific program elements even with published documents completely contrary to their coverage? Do you remember how the media tried to make the story about "Hero or Zero?" and "Merkle and Obama are having an argument" rather than cover the content of the documents, including the NSA's relationship to mass propaganda programmes, government hacking to benefit private US citizens and industries, and efforts to influence overseas elections? The traditional media verifiably alters and spins documents, records and stories. The speculation that "Guccifer 2.0" has done the same thing is just that - speculation. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3grHmI44mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3grHmI44mg [2] www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/30/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria-audio.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

nl 10y ago
This is mostly disputable. They include Kerry espousing the principles of Democracy, but not the fact that he was trying to convince the opposition (which does not want an election, including one overseen by the US) that they might want to have an election. I'm not sure what the point here is. The Syrian opposition is a very wide range of groups. I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, no? The New York Times completely avoids publishing Kerry say that the reason that Russia intervened in Syria was because if they hadn't Daesh was likely to take over the government; and that the US had been hoping to use the ISIS threat as leverage to negotiate American support within the Syrian government. That simply isn't true. The second map on http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034 (ie, http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2016/newsspec_13854/img/syria_iraq_control_976_20sep2016.png http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2016/newsspec_13854/im...) show this. The Syrian government's core cities (Damascus, Homs, Aleppo) are/were mostly threatened by the Syrian opposition forces (the "FSA"). They say that Daesh was gaining enough strength to threaten Assad in the future, and they hoped that would get Assad to negotiate. The New York Times edited out Kerry's admission that much of the Syrian opposition have allied themselves with "Nusra and Daesh": al Qaeda. I haven't listened to the whole tape yet, but I'd note that at the very start the female speaker specifically says they are trying to avoid aligning with Nusra, but that she thinks Nusra is waiting for them to get desperate. I'm not sure this is editing it out, as opposed to the fact that the Syrian environment is extremely complex and changes rapidly. The FSA is getting destroyed at the moment, and FSA-aligned groups include a wide range of other groups, which change their alignment with Nusra (and the Kurds) frequently. The clips of Kerry describing how a US invasion of Syria would be completely illegal, whereas Russia was legally invited by the government of Syria got dropped I haven't heard this yet, but it sounds correct to me? I don't think anyone in the US is advocating for an invasion are they? Edit: I've heard this part now. I don't understand what you are saying - is there anything new or controversial to report here?
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  Edit - With regard to your editted question "I don't understand what you are saying - is there anything new or controversial to report here?": yes. First: the material that the NYT specifically edited to display wasn't new information. To the contrary, the information edited out would be new information to a lot of people (including yourself if you look at your own comment wrt 'that's not true' and 'most of this is disputable'). Second: the point of the comment, even if you choose to ignore/disbelieve things you do not want to believe wrt Syria, is that the NYT is very selective about what they choose to publish. Indeed, take a look again at what parts the NYT chose to include and what parts got small versus big font, and how context was edited out of the snippets. > They include Kerry espousing the principles of Democracy, but not the fact that he was trying to convince the opposition (which does not want an election, including one overseen by the US) that they might want to have an election. I'm speaking here about both the 'majority consensus' of the opposition, and what is spoken by the leadership of the opposition in the leaked audio. In any case it's an important omission by the New York Times, which is the point of the comment. > That simply isn't true. > The second map ... It definitely is true. I doubt how closely you've followed the Syrian Proxy War. But the point (again) here is that John Kerry said it, and said it to opposition leaders behind closed doors, and it was edited out. > I haven't listened to the whole tape yet Keep listening. > I haven't heard this yet, but it sounds correct to me? I don't think anyone in the US is advocating for an invasion are they? There have been many attempts to find a political basis for US coalition invasion of Syria. However at this point the better of those options have run out. The remaining options are: A. Provoke or simulate Syrian government attacks on US forces (think Tonkin) at which point it is legal based on self-defense. B. Get invited in by the Syrian government (not likely to happen). C. Get the UN Security Council to justify it. Unlikely as Russia or China is likely to veto it. D. Establish a legal argument that the US is justified going in because of atrocity. Right now this would be an uphill legal battle as it is not the consensus that this can justify an invasion. Other options (besides the diplomatic track) for the US geopolitical objective of regime change include some covert, illegal options such as assassination of key Syrian government officials, more proxy support including of al Sham (al Nusra's new branding), and leverage on Russia/Syria in other contexts (sanctions/economic warfare, more propaganda/information war, etc). There's current emphasis on the possibility of building support, under the authorities current present, to establish no-fly zones to give Syrian terror/opposition/rebel groups cover for ground offensives and to let off government and Russian strikes.

nl 10y ago

This is mostly disputable. They include Kerry espousing the principles of Democracy, but not the fact that he was trying to convince the opposition (which does not want an election, including one overseen by the US) that they might want to have an election. I'm not sure what the point here is. The Syrian opposition is a very wide range of groups. I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, no? The New York Times completely avoids publishing Kerry say that the reason that Russia intervened in Syria was because if they hadn't Daesh was likely to take over the government; and that the US had been hoping to use the ISIS threat as leverage to negotiate American support within the Syrian government. That simply isn't true. The second map on http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034 (ie, http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2016/newsspec_13854/img/syria_iraq_control_976_20sep2016.png http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2016/newsspec_13854/im...) show this. The Syrian government's core cities (Damascus, Homs, Aleppo) are/were mostly threatened by the Syrian opposition forces (the "FSA"). They say that Daesh was gaining enough strength to threaten Assad in the future, and they hoped that would get Assad to negotiate. The New York Times edited out Kerry's admission that much of the Syrian opposition have allied themselves with "Nusra and Daesh": al Qaeda. I haven't listened to the whole tape yet, but I'd note that at the very start the female speaker specifically says they are trying to avoid aligning with Nusra, but that she thinks Nusra is waiting for them to get desperate. I'm not sure this is editing it out, as opposed to the fact that the Syrian environment is extremely complex and changes rapidly. The FSA is getting destroyed at the moment, and FSA-aligned groups include a wide range of other groups, which change their alignment with Nusra (and the Kurds) frequently. The clips of Kerry describing how a US invasion of Syria would be completely illegal, whereas Russia was legally invited by the government of Syria got dropped I haven't heard this yet, but it sounds correct to me? I don't think anyone in the US is advocating for an invasion are they? Edit: I've heard this part now. I don't understand what you are saying - is there anything new or controversial to report here?

jwtadvice 10y ago
Edit - With regard to your editted question "I don't understand what you are saying - is there anything new or controversial to report here?": yes. First: the material that the NYT specifically edited to display wasn't new information. To the contrary, the information edited out would be new information to a lot of people (including yourself if you look at your own comment wrt 'that's not true' and 'most of this is disputable'). Second: the point of the comment, even if you choose to ignore/disbelieve things you do not want to believe wrt Syria, is that the NYT is very selective about what they choose to publish. Indeed, take a look again at what parts the NYT chose to include and what parts got small versus big font, and how context was edited out of the snippets. > They include Kerry espousing the principles of Democracy, but not the fact that he was trying to convince the opposition (which does not want an election, including one overseen by the US) that they might want to have an election. I'm speaking here about both the 'majority consensus' of the opposition, and what is spoken by the leadership of the opposition in the leaked audio. In any case it's an important omission by the New York Times, which is the point of the comment. > That simply isn't true. > The second map ... It definitely is true. I doubt how closely you've followed the Syrian Proxy War. But the point (again) here is that John Kerry said it, and said it to opposition leaders behind closed doors, and it was edited out. > I haven't listened to the whole tape yet Keep listening. > I haven't heard this yet, but it sounds correct to me? I don't think anyone in the US is advocating for an invasion are they? There have been many attempts to find a political basis for US coalition invasion of Syria. However at this point the better of those options have run out. The remaining options are: A. Provoke or simulate Syrian government attacks on US forces (think Tonkin) at which point it is legal based on self-defense. B. Get invited in by the Syrian government (not likely to happen). C. Get the UN Security Council to justify it. Unlikely as Russia or China is likely to veto it. D. Establish a legal argument that the US is justified going in because of atrocity. Right now this would be an uphill legal battle as it is not the consensus that this can justify an invasion. Other options (besides the diplomatic track) for the US geopolitical objective of regime change include some covert, illegal options such as assassination of key Syrian government officials, more proxy support including of al Sham (al Nusra's new branding), and leverage on Russia/Syria in other contexts (sanctions/economic warfare, more propaganda/information war, etc). There's current emphasis on the possibility of building support, under the authorities current present, to establish no-fly zones to give Syrian terror/opposition/rebel groups cover for ground offensives and to let off government and Russian strikes.