I mean the BBC did fake an entire chemical attack in Syria, complete with a fake documentary, when the British were trying to push for intervention. Then they p

I mean the BBC did fake an entire chemical attack in Syria, complete with a fake documentary, when the British were trying to push for intervention. Then they proceeded to purge and memory-hole the entire thing when it was finally released and turned out to be worse than a low-budget film. It was full of voice dubbing doctors, repeated takes, and actors coming out of the woodwork to try to stop investigations[0]. It's called "Saving Syria's Children." Of course, the standard Western narrative exists in its own sphere, and the only groups to challenge it are the opposition (Russians, Iranians). As a consequence, even generally rational people will immediately dismiss the opposition as being malicious/untrustworthy and will as a result ignore the arguments being presented. Even though the arguments are not originally Russian/Iranian. The outcome is we now have Western news sources being wholly unchallenged (and vice versa) and BBC continuing to be considered reliable since anyone who would question them is, as a consequence of the culture that has been established, suddenly unreliable. [0] https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/identification-of-possible-participant-in-the-napalm-bomb-event/ https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/identi...