Saturday, October 10, 2015

NYT and other MSM outlets have used "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" in a vulgar manner

This so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has been a frequently and widely used "source" on Syria by almost every major Western and Western-supported news outlet, including The New York Times. A search on NYT shows that it occurs on no less than 1,715 different pieces of content produced by NYT.

It's a fact that this sophisticated-sounding "Observatory" is run by one man, and even calling this one-man outlet an "organization" is a stretch. Using his information as a primary and key source in hundreds of articles by dozens of major newspapers isn't just irresponsible, it is blatant and malicious propaganda. More so because the major Western newspapers which so frequently quote the SOHR never explain why they trust and use this "source", or how does the SOHR get its information. Western media continues to quote SOHR as if it's a sophisticated and trustworthy source of on-the-ground information on Syria, using sentences such as "...the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported in a statement...". What observatory? What reporting? What statement? The SOHR is actually a one-man blog with zero credibility, unless you're trying to fool hundreds of millions in the general public and dozens of governments.

More disturbingly, the NYT and others can sometimes give the reader an illusion that more than one source is reporting the same news, making the reader feel that the information is likely to be correct, whereas in reality all the roots go back to this one-man blog.

What can one decipher and infer from all of this? Only one thing. That the NYT is fully in bed with the CIA, Pentagon, and others, as a powerful media propaganda branch of these institutions.

Update [24-Oct-15, 24-Nov-14]: More SOHR trash here and here.

Update [23-Jan-16]: More SOHR shit here on Reuters. It's all Western propaganda packaged as authentic news.

Update [23-Dec-16]: SOHR called out as an unreliable [and likely biased] one-man outfit.

No comments:

Post a Comment