text: This week’s Listening Post–the Al Jazeera program that includes clips from citizens all over the world with varying views–discusses “Syria’s media tug of war.” I haven’t listened yet (I’m at a conference) but the subject is pertinent and timely.
  Today, there are two stories making the rounds that illustrate this “tug of war” perfectly. The first is a New York Times blog post that demonstrates the Syrian state news agency’s (SANA) falsification of evidence in its argument that rebels are funded by foreign agents. Another, on CNN and elsewhere, reports a tragedy: More than 40 Syrian soldiers allegedly executed by the regime. In this case, the story may very well be true…but the only source is unnamed “activists.”
  In fact, the latter is entirely illustrative of the mainstream Western (and Gulf) media’s approach to Syria. A quick glance at the reporting done by the New York Times, CNN, Alarabiya, and others shows that “unnamed activists,” “Syrian opposition activists,” and “human rights activists” are their primary–and often, only–sources.
  In a paper I wrote for the conference I’m currently attending, I analyzed the reporting of several mainstream news sources on Syrian casualty reports between November 2011 and February 2012. While that paper isn’t quite ready for prime time, here’s a table illustrating what I found:
  As I intend to argue in my paper, these sources…and their numbers (which vary wildly) matter. As I’ve written elsewhere, I have personal history with Syria. I have known and talked about the horrors of the regime since long before March 2011. But while even 1,000 civilian deaths are far too many, these numbers matter when they’re being used to justify intervention. The media’s almost total reliance upon activists–not simply citizens, but self-described activists–is therefore problematic.
  And yet, criticizing that fact has become even more problematic. As I said on Twitter earlier today, “question activist reports and you’re shabih. Report on regime atrocities and you’re a shill for the GCC.” Seriously…you can’t win. The international community largely appears to view Syria in terms of black and white when the situation is in fact quite grey…or at the very least, unclear, unverifiable.
  This brings me back to the point about the media. At the moment, you have what is essentially a divide between journalists, commentators, and media bureaus that are very clearly pushing the opposition line and those that appear to be shilling for the regime. And there’s no middle ground – there’s almost no one condemning the regime, for example, whilst simultaneously questioning the dominant opposition narrative. Those who dare search for truth are immediately labeled as being on one side or the other.
  Comments on a recent NYTimes article by Tyler Hicks, who was with Anthony Shadid in Syria when he died.
  This post isn’t about which side is right or wrong. As I’ve said before, what I think about Syria is well-known but frankly, it truly doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. What concerns me, rather, is that the media–whose job it is to report facts, objectively*–is not only pushing a certain narrative, but also ignoring certain truths: the non-civilian casualty toll, for example (this one in particular bothers me when I think about all of my friends that did or almost did their compulsory Syrian military service).
  What bothers me most, however, is the sheer certainty with which both sides attempt to make their points. The New Yorker in the screenshot above, for example, is so sure that “one side is for life, the other for death.” I’m not so sure. I’m certain that the regime is killing civilians (if you’re going to argue with me on that, just go away), but I’m not sure that there aren’t bad actors amongst the legitimate opposition. I can’t be sure…especially not when the media isn’t doing their job.
  *not my favorite term, as you might know, but it’s nonetheless relevant.
  Tags Media, syria
  ← Wednesday Reads → On March 15
  15 replies on “On Syria’s Media Narrative(s): A Rant”
  Syria from afar | Syria News Wiresays:
  March 3, 2012 at 8:48 pm
  […] Jillian York looks at how activists are feeding the mainstream media with the story (it’s something The […]
  algeriannasays:
  March 4, 2012 at 2:24 am
  Excellent article Jillian, it is indeed a serious problem when media don’t do what they’re supposed to do: report ‘verifiable’ facts or at least have the decency not to present them as certainties.
  gregorylentsays:
  March 4, 2012 at 8:37 am
  qatar giving 100 million bucks in arms fits where?
  HWsays:
  March 5, 2012 at 4:00 am
  Here are just a sample of very recent fabricated videos. There have been literally hundreds sinc the beginning of the uprising.
  “With such friends, the Syrians won’t need enemies”
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFFBx8tp4ls&feature=player_embedded
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBf4J1RJMuk
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYVH3CdVCZ0
  http://www.syrianyouth.com/#/419_media-lies-using-children.html
  Morocco Bamasays:
  March 5, 2012 at 6:47 am
  This brings me back to the point about the media. At the moment, you have what is essentially a divide between journalists, commentators, and media bureaus that are very clearly pushing the opposition line and those that appear to be shilling for the regime. And there’s no middle ground – there’s almost no one condemning the regime, for example, whilst simultaneously questioning the dominant opposition narrative. Those who dare search for truth are immediately labeled as being on one side or the other.
  Thank you so much for saying this. No one else has said it, or even thought it, so it seems, in this whole debate. I find that if one sticks to sound principles, rather than taking sides, they end up on firm ground, rather than carrying water for those with a dubious agenda. The principle at play with Syria, and with much of the Middle East and the West’s approach to it, is one of Authoritarianism. I’m a U.S. citizen and I battle Authoritarianism at home every day, so I’m not about to take the side of brutal Authoritarians overseas. The way I see it, it’s Authoritarians versus Authoritarians, and Authoritarianism is the winner in this structure, regardless of what side wins the battle.
  I have argued this point on the following blog, and have been censored and banned as a result. I was viciously attacked by the Hive Mind. They called me every name in the book. It was internet bullying at its best. The goal was to squelch freedom of expression and maintain group think at all costs. It’s despicable behavior.
  http://www.moonofalabama.org/
  Jilliansays:
  March 5, 2012 at 5:27 pm
  Have seen that blog as well…the fact that they delete comments they disagree with tells me everything I need to know.
  By Post Author
  Vaskasays:
  March 7, 2012 at 5:47 pm
  Well done — those questions do have to be raised and addressed.
  It worries me when state entities such as the Saudi Arabia start calling for the arming of “the Syrian opposition” — which one? — and doing so in the name of human rights, no less.
  Propaganda war affects coverage of Syrian conflict | Presstitution™says:
  March 12, 2012 at 2:35 am
  […] of International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, writing in her personal blog, is careful to stress that criticism of coverage of Syria does not necessarily denote support for […]
  Luksays:
  March 16, 2012 at 3:49 pm
  this blog and some others, like the Angry Arab, is so concerned about media coverage that they seem to forget the main point: there is a regime that is a dictatorship, that kills and tortures its own people by the thousands, that promises reforms but does not act, that bombs its own towns. What’s the point of saying that there are bad people on the other side as well? sure there are, how can you overthrow a powerful regime being kind? The only important point is whether the regime should be overthrown or not. Once we agree on this, then we can discuss how and who is better suited to do the job and whether external intervention is needed or should be rejected, and whether the current opposition has enough consensus to set up a new government. The very fact that the Syrian regime does not allow journalists in is enough good reason to be biased against it.
  Jilliansays:
  March 16, 2012 at 4:18 pm
  This blog post might miss that point, but it’s meant to specifically criticize one element of the situation. Believe me, I have not forgotten that the Syrian regime is brutal.
  The point of saying there are bad people on the other side, as well as pointing out the media bias, is because there are serious implications at stake: Do you want another Iraq? Another Libya? Don’t you think we should consider the reality on the ground as well as the reality of what the MAJORITY of Syrian people want? I’m all for Syrians taking down their autocratic regime, but I’m not necessarily for regime changed pushed from the outside; particularly when Syrians have witnessed firsthand the effects of that very thing on neighboring Iraq (you do realize that most Iraqi Christians fled to Syria, right? What happens when Sunni militants take over Syria?)
  By Post Author
  Results for week beginning 2012-03-12 | Iron Blogger SFsays:
  March 19, 2012 at 10:21 pm
  […] On Syria’s Media Narrative(s): A Rant […]
  mynetsays:
  April 19, 2012 at 2:38 pm
  @WCIAJillian Hey Jillian, thanks for c
  mynetsays:
  April 19, 2012 at 2:56 pm
  @C_LiveLaughL0ve Ok. Good to know. If I suddenly go AWOL you will know Jillian Michaels killed me. LOL
  Where is the truth in the battle for Syria’s narrative? | UNCUTsays:
  June 15, 2012 at 7:48 am
  […] regime, for example, whilst simultaneously questioning the dominant opposition narrative,” complains Jillian C York. “Those who dare search for truth are immediately labelled as being on one side or the […]
  sohbetsays:
  October 18, 2016 at 9:27 am
  Bilgi icin thanks, very good post.
  Leave a Reply Cancel reply
  Your email address will not be published.
  Comment
  Name
  Email
  Website
  Δ
  This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
  About
  Books
  Byline
  In the Media
  Talks & Events
  Stories
  Contact
  Twitter
  Facebook
  Instagram
  Recent Posts
  On grief, on Alaa October 19, 2022
  On Bari Weiss and COVID-19 January 23, 2022
  Welcome to our dystopian future July 22, 2021
  Posts Archive
  March 2012
  M
  T
  W
  T
  F
  S
  S
  1 2 3 4
  5 6 7 8 9 10 11
  12 13 14 15 16 17 18
  19 20 21 22 23 24 25
  26 27 28 29 30 31
  « Feb Apr »
  © 2022 Jillian C. York
  To the top ↑ Up ↑
  Anonymous analytics notice
  We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
  Cookie settingsACCEPT
  Manage consent
  Close
  Privacy Overview
  This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
  Necessary
  Necessary
  Always Enabled
  Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
  Non-necessary
  Non-necessary
  Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.