Syria on My Mind

It’s hard to ignore what is going on in Syria, and yet what is being done about it is inadequate to make competing groups inside the country relinquish bloodshed. Just like many others, I have been following the events unfold over different media outposts, but mostly through the web and TV. In my view, print and web coverage of the events is less one-sided than its TV coverage. Graphic images of the dead and the injured are being juxtaposed with weary reporters’ interviews of many who are caught in the crossfire as well as many who are causing it. Its hard to understand who are the rebels and who are the civilians.

When I was younger I was a huge fan of the western media news channels. I followed almost the entire invasion of Iraq through CNN and the BBC. I would devour them for hours. I even had a crush on a number of female anchors of BBC and one in particular from CNN. However, now my view of these channels’ claims of unbiased reporting have changed. I have realised how biased they are towards their government’s point of view and more and more they seem like western propaganda rather than news, a bit like India’s state television Doordarshan that spends hours telling its viewers what the PM or the President said during the day. They lack critical analysis of the issue(s) at hand. Although, I hold that the BBC still remains the most unbiased of them all. Its reporting is the least reflective of the British government official or unofficial position of international issues and its reporters give special emphasis on providing both sides of the story. Not so much with CNN.

A case in point is CNN’s coverage of the Syrian crisis. Before I analyse how CNN reported from the UN’s headquarter from New York, I must convey to the readers that unbiasness in reporting can have many manifestations. It could be giving less weight-age to a fact in the story that do no good to the official position, it could also include inviting guests that have sympathy towards only one aspect of the story or even just repeatedly reiterating what one side is saying. CNN is guilty of the latter. First of all, it’s interesting to note how American media seriously starts to pursue a story only when there has been an official statement from the US administration about it. The Syrian killings were nowhere to be seen on American media’s websites till the time Obama asked Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to step down, after which it was front page news. Overall, the changes one notices in American media’s attitude after a US president makes a statement are as follows:

1. The number of reports about the issue see a massive rise
2. It starts to appear somewhere on the main page of news websites or captures headlines on TV and newspapers
3. They usually either reflect the America’s foreign policy establishment’s known viewpoint or the new tone the president has taken and sometimes it’s a mi of both
4. America is shown as savior of humanity and its background role in instigating the crisis is often either ignored altogether or is not analysed critically
5. The other side of the story is dismissed as the belligerent administration’s propaganda

When the UN voted last Monday on Syrian government’s fate, CNN repeatedly focused on US’ Ambassador’s to UN’s Sussan Rice’s remark, that she felt “disgusted” that China and Russia had VETOed a resolution which could have saved hundreds of lives (although, she conspicuously failed to mentioned how many would have died had US attacked the country, like in Libya). CNN, like a good daughter, got into the mode of reinforcing US’ official position that rebel groups in Syria are the only legitimate political and representative voice and that al-Assad should immediately step down to make way for them to form a democratic government. In other word’s CNN seemed to be endorsing US’ stance of a regime change even thought it didn’t say it explicitly.

CNN’s reporting of the Syrian crisis has mainly focused on the rebels killed my Syrian forces and no thought had been spared to focus on the origins of the rebel groups or from where they are getting weapons and support.

In contrast, the BBC has been pleasantly unbias – reporting things as they are on ground while also frequently reporting what Russian and Chinese views are on the issue. This neutrality is missing in CNN’s coverage. It seems to me as if CNN is almost going along with US’ demands of a regime change. And in all this diplomacy is nowhere to be seen (which I may also add is India’s official position – that diplomacy must take centre-stage. Different Syrian groups should be brought to the negotiating table and negotiations held for a change, not regime change).

Another channel that needs a mention here and without which this article would seem bias is the Moscow-based Russian state-funded RT, formerly Russia Today. To my mind RT can be summed up in two words – Putin’s mouthpiece. RT is purportedly financed by the Russian state and the channel can’t stop bragging about how well Russia is doing while only the most gloomy stories from the West, and in particular America, make it on-air on RT.

It’s coverage of Syria isn’t very balanced either, however, it provides the much needed ‘other’ point of view or the flip side of the story. It has highlighted Russia’s position in the Syrian conflict while highlighting the West’s hidden agenda behind its claim of humanitarian intervention, that of an evential regime change. Although, RT’s stand on the conflict may be motivated by Russia’s strategic interests in country, it has steadfastly defended Russia’s official viewpoint of the situation, all the while the western media was busy vigorously trying to paint Russia and China as the villains in the conflict, blocking a messianic West from intervening in what is actually a civil war. While there is genuine dissident in Syria against Asad’s regime, an over-simplistic western view with a focus on regime change has complicated the situation. Moreover, none of the western channel have spend any serious energy on investigating the flow of arms into rebel held cities like Homs and Aleppo. This is a serious flaw. The fact of the matter is that it’s almost impossible for the rebels to get arms to resists Asad’s marching tanks into their towns and cities without covert help. Since Russia has already sided with Asad in the conflict, its most likely rebels are being cheered by the west just like they were in Libya against Qaddafi, but the Western media has no time to report that. It is single-mindedly focused on chasing the rebels in their quest to rid Syria of Asad and in turn bring about an end to the conflict favourable only to the West – regime change!