3 ms·
It's a disguise of neutrality. They don't talk about the rebels or who they are or what they do, but miss no chance to vilify the Syrian and Russian governments
by mhermher 10y ago
It's a disguise of neutrality. They don't talk about the rebels or who they are or what they do, but miss no chance to vilify the Syrian and Russian governments. You see how it's not neutrail at all? The revolution is grossly misrepresented in mainstream Western media. The pro democracy protests of 2011 are very long gone. It''s become foreign powers using jihadis to topple Assad long ago. The coverage has lagged several years now and refuses to acknowledge the facts on the ground.
The only reason there has been a response and coverage of ISIS is because of terrorist attacks in the west. As far as what is happening in Syria, ISIS is not particularly worse than most of the rebels in Idlib and Aleppo.
- M_Grey 10y agoPretty much anytime I see coverage (to be fair I'm watching BBC, reading things other than CNN or the like) it makes it clear that there are no good guys here, just various forms of victims and victimizers. If there's one steady factor I've noted across all sources though, it's the inability or lack of willingness to connect this incredible surge in violence and instability across North Africa and the Middle East to climate change and drought. The "Arab Spring" was just part of that; people who couldn't work, couldn't feed themselves or their families. It was always going to go downhill, but people love their narratives of hope.