September 14, 2012
Syria Dispatches: Robert Fisk's Independence
The international media has not always been kind to Syria’s revolutionary people. For months on end, many of the latter turned themselves into instant citizen-journalists to document their uprising and the violent repression of the Syrian regime, loading clips and photos taken from their mobile-phones to various social networks; still, the established media, insinuating that only it could really be trusted, covered these events with an ever-present disclaimer that these images could not be independently verified. Since the Damascus regime was refusing to allow more than a trickle of foreign media personnel into the country, chaperoned by the infamous minders, what the Syrians themselves were reporting was deemed unreliable.
Nevertheless, an increasing number of brave journalists dared to sneak into Syria at great personal risk, reporting the same events which activists had attempted to spread to the world. For the most part, experienced journalists were perfectly capable of distinguishing between straight propaganda from a regime fighting for its survival and real information from a variety of other sources. Overwhelmingly, ensuing reports about Syria gave a voice to "the other side" or at least quoted opposing points of view, if only for balance. In some cases, journalists found no room to cater for the regime’s claims, especially when reporting from civilian areas under relentless attack by Bashar al-Assad's forces.
It was from the wretched Homs district of Baba Amr, under siege and shelling for an entire month, that the late Marie Colvin, amongst others, testified on the eve of her death under the regime’s shells about the "sickening situation" and the "merciless disregard for the civilians who simply cannot escape." Like her, most of those who managed to get into Syria have testified about the regime’s repression of a popular uprising, even after the latter evolved to include an armed rebellion.
Robert Fisk, a seasoned war correspondent who has covered the region for decades, surprisingly broke a mould, gradually allowing himself to become a part, and not simply a witness, of the Syrian regime’s propaganda campaign.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 10:06 AM | Permalink






















Comments
I must admit it ranks up there among one of the most unique blog ideas I have ever seen.
Posted by: Plate making machines | Sep 14, 2012 11:22:55 AM
It is undisputed that the U.S. neocons issued a paper in March of 1999 calling for the U.S. invasion and overthrow of governments throughout the middle east, including Syria, so that the U.S. could install puppets and gain military control of the entire region, and economic control of the world. The same paper stated that in order to get the American public to go along with that plat, there would need to be a catastrophic attack on the U.S., something like a Pearl Harbor.
It is also undisputed that many of the same neocons were given high-level jobs in the bush-cheney regime. Including Donald Rumsfeld, a PNAC guy, who took control of the Pentagon.
It is also now established by independent sources that beginning in May of 2001, the CIA gave bush-cheney repeated warnings about an imminent mass casualty attack inside the U.S. to be staged by al queda people already here, and that "someone" in the Pentagon told bush-cheney to ignore all such warnings. Nothing was done, and behold, we have 9/11 and all the wars that followed.
It is also undisputed that the U.S. has invaded, bombed, attacked, occupied many nations in the middle east over the past 10 years, and that Syria was on the top of the PNAC paper's list of regimes to be eliminated.
It is undisputed that the U.S. is arming and directing the Syrian "rebels," just like they did the Libyan "rebels."
It is fair to conclude, therefore, that what is going on in Syria is a war of aggression being carried out by the U.S., through a front group, to overthrow the government and take control of the nation.
War is awful. I'm against all wars. But when a nation is invaded by a foreign country, don't they usually fight back? Should we criticize those who fight against the invaders? Or the invaders, the aggressor?
Posted by: NABNYC | Sep 14, 2012 1:11:25 PM
Robert Fisk has always been a questionable and compromised "journalist". He may have taken this tack because he is aligned with Hizbulla and other anti-Israel groups. So the report that his journalism is nothing more than Soviet style white wash is not surprising.
Posted by: Ian Kaplan | Sep 14, 2012 1:39:33 PM
I've been reading Fisk for decades and his bias is consistent. Now that he is having to do summersaults to criticize the anti Assad factions, while he is pretending not to bw a Hizbollah-Assad-Iran supporter, he has become rather pathetic.
Posted by: aguy109 | Sep 17, 2012 4:11:56 PM
Post a comment