I agree with you here. It seems because she spoke passionately at a press conference that her word is being taken as Gospel by John Oliver lite types.
Says your man - One of the most gullible posters on the forum - - - Just because you like to preach from the right doesnât mean you are not a sheep in your own right.
1 Like
Follow the money.
She is self funded and crowd funded. She has no loyalty.
If you want to continue to believe Murdock dominated news then go ahead. Thats your choice.
Iâm not saying for a minute Oytin and the Russians are angels. But American media has us âWesternersâ fooled into thinking ecerythibg is black & white.
2 Likes
If you want to continue to believe I believe Murdock-dominated (sic) news then go ahead. Thatâs your choice.
are we now saying that Assad is the good guy here and in hindsight he was correct to dump a load of chlorine barrel bombs on a maternity hospital?
For contrarian foreign policy cranks like @Watch_The_Break that seems to be the new position all right. Theyâve found a new hero, she seems so self assured.
Do the election turnout and results not back up her opinion of the general sentiment of the Syrian people. As Kev says sheâs independent, she was there, speaking Arabic to locals. How can any of the western media version be verified?
I wouldnât trust anything anybody says about Syrian elections. Voting only took place in government-held territories.
What Eva Bartlett says deserves to be treated with the same scepticism any other source would, and probably more given her propensity to appear on RT and the pro-Assad language she uses.
Western mainstream media were on the ground in Iraq. A lot of them were called âembeddedâ journalists. Did being on the ground mean they should be trusted 100%? Of course not. I donât see why itâs any different for Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley or anybody else in Syria who almost certainly were being shown what the Syrian government would have wanted them to see and would have been getting the responses on the ground that the Syrian government wanted them to get.
There have been fact checks done on Bartlettâs story about the rescue of the girl being recycled, including by Channel 4 News. The story appears to not hold up.
Nor does what she says about the hospital that was bombed.
And recognising that doesnât make you a shill for the rebels, Islamists, the US, âMurdock (sic) mediaâ or anybody else.
By their nature, such conflicts are difficult to decipher the real truth about. Everything should be approached with a healthy degree of scepticism. What isnât up for debate is that civilians have suffered and are suffering terribly in areas held by all sides.
For what itâs worth Iâve found Channel 4 News and Newsnight to be reasonably fair and balanced on Syria.
2 Likes
False equivalency there with embedded journalists in Iraq who were stupidly biased, whether they intended to be or not. I donât think you can argue Bartlett is a mouthpiece for the Assad regime, or for any reason pro it, everything should be looked at with scepticism but youâre not giving her any credit or respect as a journalist if you think she canât decipher between wheeled out government supporters and common people. Iâm sure she met both groups, no doubt the previous by design.
I donât think itâs false equivalency.
She uses very similar language to what embedded journalists in Iraq used - âliberatorsâ, âterroristsâ etc.
Is it credible to say that the majority of the people in Aleppo are pro-Assad? Sure.
Is it credible to say that there isnât a civil war and that the population of Syria is as overwhelmingly pro-Assad to the extent she claims it is? No, I donât think so, in fact itâs obvious nonsense, notwithstanding all the outside actors in the Syrian conflict.
And as Iâve said, two of her claims in the video have been debunked.
Just because somebody says theyâre independent doesnât mean theyâre independent, they may be highly biased (and Iâm not singling out Bartlett here).
Similarly, just because somebody is attached to a âmainstream mediaâ organisation, certain people who already have their minds up will automatically discount them as a source, which is nuts, notwithstanding that certain media organisations will have biases, occasionally obvious but usually far less obvious, about many matters they cover.
Itâs very credible to say that while the majority may not be crazy about Assad heâs a much better alternative to the so called ârebels.â Did you ever consider that the citizens of a once fairly developed peaceful and secular country donât want to be over run by religious nutjobs. And have chosen to be on are on the side of the democratically elected government of their country.
1 Like
Iâd need to see her in her underwear before I could make a decision.
3 Likes
Those people in the ground in iraq were being paid by the BBC, Murdock et al. What part of that do you not understand?
This Ladies independance as a journalist is pretty hard to deny.
Nobody is being Pro-Assad here. The point of it is that she is telling us what the people on the ground think. When you look at what Aleppo was in terms of a city, its not too hard to believe that people were pretty happy with the way it was but that a few local tribes (who seem to be as much in conflict with each other as anyone else) jumped on a regional movement bandwagon and got some traction, and were well armed by the Yanks.
You still refuse to see the money line
1 Like
Did you ever consider that I might not have the âviewâ you ascribe to me?
Whatâs journalistic independence?
The INTERNET is littered with people who claim they are âindependent journalistsâ and are anything but.
Repeating your pre-conceived narrative that any âmainstream mediaâ coverage is worthless advances your argument in precisely no way.
Eva Bartlett is being pro-Assad, strongly so.
You realise âthe people on the groundâ donât speak with one voice, yes?
I donât need somebody who by their own admission uses this forum as a proxy advertising service to tell me about following a âmoney lineâ, thanks.
Alot of rubbish. Wsste of time debating
No, Kev. What you put up was a lot of rubbish.
Your debating style can be summarised as follows:
Post up a load of fact-free, generalised, conspiracy theory-influenced rubbish, than refuse to engage when itâs picked apart.
This is instance #573937.
2 Likes
Well you seem to be rubbishing the claims of the journalist and saying they have been debunked. I read the channel 4 rebuttal but it was very weak. They âfact checkedâ one or two of her claims and ignored the rest. Even at that they werent sure they were fact checking what she was talking about.
1 Like
What was weak about it?
Bartlett hasnât responded to Channel 4 News or other outlets that have debunked the story.
The onus is on her to back the story up as she made the assertion.
Why on earth would anybody need to fake or recycle footage of the same girl?
The only reason anybody could have for doing so, or for believing that it was taking place, is if children werenât being killed or injured in significant numbers in Aleppo.
Have you seen footage of what the city looks like? Is this âfakedâ too? Do you think itâs credible that children werenât being killed or injured in significant numbers in Aleppo?
That isnât to remain blind to the possibility for propaganda from all sides, clearly there is potential for propaganda, but why would you have to fake this kind?
How is it credible to say that what has been taking place since 2011 is not a civil war?
How can one say with any confidence that a journalist is âindependentâ, when they write a blog for RT (a television station owned by the Russian government, who are directly involved in the conflict), and use the language of "liberation and âterroristsâ that Fox News used in Iraq in 2003? Merely because they say so themselves? This stretches credulity to the absolute limit.
Asking these questions in no way implies support for the Syrian opposition or for anybody.
Theyâre basic questions about journalistic integrity and I honestly donât see how they can be squared without doing some serious mental gymnastics.
1 Like