An overall note: I think we both agree at this point of the conversation that US media have a very specific spin on reporting in a way that skews and includes i

An overall note: I think we both agree at this point of the conversation that US media have a very specific spin on reporting in a way that skews and includes information to magnify the official US narrative, even when it is plainly evident that this presentation is factually inaccurate. You've described a kind of unsatisfied state with how to understand the facts, but have not yet overtly agreed that not only does US media not communicate how to understand these facts or explore their complexities - but that US media does not make the facts themselves available, preferring to exclude and obscure them. I think we can both agree that the US media could service the American public much better if it both presented the unsavory, contradictory-to-state-narrative facts and if it deeply explored the complexities of these facts rather than resort to obscurantism like "it's complicated and there are a lot of factions on the ground and not EVERY person in the opposition has a relationship to groups formally recognized by the United States as terrorists." That said, here's an attempt to respond to the confusion in the above comment about those complexities. > the opposition in Syria has a deep relationship with al Qaeda The point here is that not only are al Qaeda and ISIS incredible strategic assets to the opposition that is very important to its military success, but that the way this gets explained in US media is it gets excluded entirely. It's not enough to point at my one line summary and say it's not enough. It's the US medias job to write non-one-line non-summaries that explain how very deeply embedded the opposition is with al Qaeda and the complexities thereof, and the legal quagmire that the US is in. Jabhat al Sham is another great example of an extremist group that, in other circumstances the US would freely designate a terrorist organization, but fluxuates in doing so for it's objectives in Syria. > the US stopped bombing al Qaeda after it changed its name It did indeed for many months. Given your article is from yesterday and does not indicate that al Nusra (al Sham) was being bombed but just that a leader was a target objective of a bombing elsewhere, I'd need to do some reading. The claim is not based on the Mark Toner/John Kirby statement, but reports from US journalists out of the DoD Press Office, State Department - National Security reporter exchanges, the stopping of bombing reports from the Pentagon for that group, and 'leaky intelligence' from the Russian, Syrian, American and Qatari (via al Jazeera) sides. > Russia is there legally > Does anyone dispute this? I think the primary questions about Russia's involvement is around how they are carrying out attacks in Aleppo. There's been many questions and rumors in the US media about Russian activities in Syria depending on whatever currently is making Washington's life difficult. > the US primary objective in Syria is regime change and is illegal Nobody claimed here that there is a single aim. "Primary objective" is a technical term. It's very clear how regime change is illegal. The US has hoped to achieve a political process whereby it achieves its objective without having to commit to too many illegal activities along the way. Of course that's been difficult and the Obama Administration is again considering illegally invading Syria to achieve the objective. The question now is: A. Will the US be able to foment a political transition away from Assad in a way that replaces the regime with one open to the future geopolitical objectives (wrt energy security, arming of Hezbollah, transit for Iran) of US allies? B. If it is not able to achieve the political transition it wants, or one at all, how will it then intervene? C. If a future political solution looks insurmountable, will the US choose to pump weapons into the opposition? Will it try to find a legal argument to invade Syria? Will it covertly break international law and directly attack the Syrian government (as it has several times already)? D. Is it possible that a new administration would cut a deal in Syria to exit the geopolitical situation to focus on counter-terrorism and stabilization? Etc. > The US isn't going around bombing Assad in Damascus or anything It is engaged in other types of warfare, including encouraging officials from the government to defect, attacking it's command and control structures to make it less effective at warfighting, grounding it air force with sabotage and cyber sabotage, etc. Anyway, remember, bombing Syrian government facilities and personnel is on the table as per the article from yesterday. Also, I'm not sure if time is serving either one of us well on this topic any more. We seem to agree, at least implicitly, about the primary driver of the thread: the dominant narrative presented by US media is the state narrative, even as this means US news organizations edit material selectively.