Eric Zuesse, simulposted at strategic-culture.org
WaPo editor in chief Marty Baron (red tie) surrounded by accomplices in disinformation. The paper is owned by Jeff Bezos, lord of Amazon, a billionaire with strong financial and political ties to the CIA. The other type of fake news is omission of a crucial fact from a report, whenever the omission is so crucial that it will sway some readers to believe " when "not is true, and therefore such an omission is equivalent to lying. This is a far more subtle type of deception, because it relies upon the consumer to deceive himself, instead of upon the publisher explicitly asserting the falsehood to the reader or hearer. Such "sins of omission are impossible to outlaw, but are more insidious than direct lying is, because any publisher can easily abuse this power to deceive, merely by making clear to his employees what types of facts they will be penalized (demoted etc.) for reporting. For example, any publisher who causes employees to exclude stating as a fact that some public official is lying or did lie about a particular matter, when proof is available that the given official did lie about it, would be publishing fake news on that matter. However, more often, a publisher simply establishes a policy not to hire editors (or producers) who would allow a report to be published that calls a "liar a person whom the publisher favors, not even if that person can be proven to have lied ” he may be said to have "erred maybe, but not "lied. The tendency, therefore, is that people in power may be described as "lacking in experience or etc., but not described as a "liar. Examples will be provided here of both types of fake news in the Washington Post, all of which examples exhibit the same intention to deceive readers in the same type of way on a particular broader subject. This broader subject that's being deceptively presented is whether or not the U.S. should conquer foreign countries; or, in other words, whether or not America's military-industrial complex (which thrives upon taxpayers' enhanced appetites for financing and shedding blood for the nation's conquests abroad) will be served. Service to that objective is otherwise called "neoconservatism or neoconservative propaganda, which is the way that the Washington Post will be documented here to be. Understanding the motive for such fake news is far more complex; the only issue to be addressed here is the fake news itself ” this particular agenda (neoconservatism) for the WP's fake news: BOTH organizations claim to have ˜a network of spies on the ground in Syria with whom they converse daily for information'. Like SOHR, Fadel Abdulghani, the Director of Syrian Network of Human Rights, lists absolutely no previous background or history on social media sites. He never existed prior to becoming an expert¦and Chairperson of his one man show. Maryam Rajavi, co leader with her husband of the MEK (People's Mujahedin), a strange and supposedly Marxian sect in exile that has fought Iran's post-Shah governments and is now being primed by the West for further mayhem against Teheran. But it gets worse: Fadel Abdulghani is aligned with the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which the US and Australia consider an alias of MEK. MEK, headed by Maryam Rajavi was considered a terrorist organization by the US as of 2003 and was delisted in 2012. There are two kinds of fake news:
One is a report of something that actually didn't happen, which for a newspaper to do can reasonably be called lying, inasmuch as a newspaper is expected to report only things that happen, and any violation of that strict standard ” which separates journalism from propaganda ” is at least negligence violating the very reason why consumers purchase or subscribe to a newspaper (that reason being trustworthiness). This deception amounts unqualifiedly to lying, in any case where a reasonable assumption can be made that the given false ˜news' report's falsehood results from the publisher's propagandistic orientation and intention to deceive on that given matter. (This might be done in order to please the controlling stockholder of an advertiser, or for many other reasons.) In such cases, the fake news is propaganda instead of news. To sell to consumers propaganda as ˜news' is additionally to deceive them into paying the publisher in order to become deceived by the publisher; so, it's a deception on top of a deception; it is actually deception-squared. That's why selling such ˜news' is even worse than merely giving it away for free (such as honest PR or propaganda is ” it is free).
The 2011 uprising
.
With ˜allies' such as Saudi Arabia's despots, and such as the apartheid Israeli ˜democracy' (which latter is so theocratic it doesn't even have any constitution), the U.S. government is no ˜democracy', despite its Constitution (which the U.S. government routinely violates). But whereas the Washington Post calls Russian Television ˜fake news', Russian Television presents news about those regimes and their allies, while the WP presents lies about RT, and about Russia, and about any ally of Russia (such as Saddam Hussein was, and Bashar al-Assad is). If this sounds like a lopsided characterization, it's nonetheless stated because the associated reality is also lopsided. That's the reality which should be reported but is instead blacked-out in America's press
.
.
.
.
.
The international war to overthrow Assad is barbaric, and nothing that is said in the present article is necessarily rejecting the possibility that some of the gruesome things that have been alleged about Assad's handling of his side of that international invasion against Syria's government might be true. But that's not the topic here, anyway; the topic is instead the question as to whether the Washington Post has fake news. It certainly does ”and lots of it," including also, for example, that ˜news'paper's continuing not to report that the coup that occurred in Ukraine in February 2014 was a coup by the U.S., and no grass-roots democratic revolution, such as the U.S. regime (and its propaganda-organs) claim it to have been. That ˜news'paper's subscribers are buying propaganda.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Regarding Amnesty International’s report, which was issued on 7 February 2017, the invariably cogent “Moon of Alabama blogger headlined and documented appropriately about it the same day, “Hearsay Extrapolated ” Amnesty Claims Mass Executions In Syria, Provides Zero Proof, but one could also say that it provided zero evidence (but lots of allegations). Three days later, the also credible Tony Cartalucci bannered “US Cooks Up New Syrian Atrocities Amid Syrian Talks. Then, yet another day later, on February 11th, the brilliant Rick Sterling headlined “Amnesty International Stokes Syrian War and he utterly destroyed the AI study’s credibility. Among many other things, he tracked the AI study’s funding and backing back to Soros and other rabid haters of Russians. Finally, on February 25th, Paul Mansfield bannered “Amnesty fake report ‘Human Slaughterhouse’ invents Assad war crimes to undermine Syria peace talks.
