The BBC, Beeley and Douma

The BBC, Beeley and Douma.

"The activists call themselves "anti-war", but as they generally back the Syrian government's military operations against rebel forces seeking to overthrow Mr Assad and Russian air strikes carried out in support, it might be more accurate to describe them as "anti-Western intervention" or "pro-Syrian government".

[Intentional over-simplification. How about:

anti-NWO centralization,

anti-Middle-East destabilisation,

anti-Oded-Yinon-Israeli expansion,

anti-GCC petro pipeline cartel monopolization,

anti-central bank formalization,

anti-failed state creation perpetuation,

anti-continued Sunni-Shia sectarianism,

or anti-'we need a war because the people are realising the scale of lies we're pushing as fodder, without facts or figures.

Or how about pro-sovereignty in favour of and in concordance with upholding consensually ratified international law.' And besides, ironically most of those forementioned negative agendas, the BBC buttresses as a pillar of the establisment.]

"According to their narrative, international media organisations across the political spectrum [international information cartel, pigs at the same trough], along with human rights organisations [often intelligence fronts as are the aforementioned media orgs], are somehow [proven] covertly aligned with Western governments [sometimes overtly], Saudi Arabia [paymasters, prime beneficiaries, cui bono?], the Islamic State group [proven proxy militia for covert war-making] and al-Qaeda [*] and taking part in a secretive plot to take over Syria."

[The plot was not so secretive nor has is failed to be documented that many nations stood to gain by plundering Syria. There's absolutely no conspiracy there.]

* Here's what Robin Cook wrote in the Guardian, published on July 8:

"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

Or perhaps;

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the United States.” – Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook

[A quote that has attempted to be debunked by the spinners because it was not found in Hansard. Perhaps in his autobiography which is a very subtle and telling book, especially where he calls Tony Blair a sun-worshipper, but I digress. And besides we 'conspiracy theorists' have a pretty good idea about what happened to that gentleman. Anyway let us progress with the propaganda.]

The network of activists includes people like Vanessa Beeley. She has more than 30,000 Twitter followers and writes for a news outlet that the website Media Bias/Fact Check calls a "conspiracy and conjecture site" that has "an extreme right bias".

[mediabiasfactcheck.com is in itself an incredibly biased organisation. I spent some time awhile back going through my bookmarks to ascertain biases and the aforementioned website has sometimes the most ridiculous criteria for dismissing websites (whilst fake news is clearly real by the very nature of this BBC article), mainly because they challenge the prevailing MSM narratives, some are better at it than others. Some sites have been labelled as having extreme bias (no source given by mediabiasfactcheck on that assertion), overt propaganda (ditto), Again I digress but my point is the BBC would have you believe they have referenced a reputable agency (one that the former cites as having 'mentioned' by them (the BBC), there is backscratching occuring) when it offers scant information on the sites that it attacks. Any in-depth check will show mediabiasfactcheck to be as credible as snopes. That is to say not very reliable and certainly biased in their meta labelling of other people's supposed biases.

Let's read on!]

"...she [Vanessa Beeley] called BBC Trending's story a "blatant attempt" to "silence independent journalism" and repeated unsubstantiated claims about alleged chemical weapons attacks.

[This is very clever language and is highly suggestive, in that the second part of the premise (after the closing quotation mark), could relate to either Beeley or indeed the BBC itself. Let us not forget that, at the time of my writing this rebuttal, the Douma claims are still factually unsubstantiated by any independent source in-situ.

As to the aforementioned syntax; intentional vagueness or sloppy journalism? You decide.

In essence though we have now gone from the vague and indirect to the specific, and specifically an attack against Beeley.]

"Beeley gives talks to fringe groups and makes appearances on media outlets including state-owned Russian channel RT."

[In other articles the BBC no doubt reframes "fringe-groups" (which it fails to name) as minorities, and lest we forget, the BBC is in essence a state-owned channel.]

"Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo on Twitter) has more than 125,000 followers, among them more than 250 journalists from mainstream media outlets. Her follower count is comparable to BBC journalists who regularly report on Syria, such as BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen (167,000) and BBC Chief International Correspondent Lyse Doucet (142,000)."

[Bowen seems to always manage explaining the situation sans any untoward geopolitical influence from Israel, and indeed is quite deft at doing so. This is just the BBC bemoaning the fact that it has ceased to be a trusted source by the well-informed people of the internet who no longer have any time for "traditional" (in the loosest sense) state-based intelligence-agency linked monopoLIES of information.

We'll take a refreshing breather here:

More from Trending:

The people who think mass shootings are staged

The people who think 9/11 may have been an 'inside job'

9/11 *RARE* CLEAR Video of WTC Building 7 Controlled Demolition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqG6v7KZ_s8 0'59

[Remember that building that never got hit by a plane but just kinda fell down anyway, and yet the BBC called it 20 minutes before it happened. Must be a total conspiracy!]

And back to the 'article'.

In her Twitter profile she describes herself as an "Independent Lebanese geopolitical commentator" but she has almost no online presence or published stories or writing away from social media platforms.

[Yet she's probably equalling or exceeding Lyse Doucet, because loads of BBC accounts are padded with socks. Or other journalists echo-chamber peddling MSM articles of dubious veracity and provenance.]

Her tweets have been quoted by mainstream news outlets, but a Google News search indicates that she has not written any articles in either English or Arabic.

[Because Google never ever censors sources. Perhaps she has a pseudonym or nom de plume. Perhaps it's not wise to write about politics under your own name in sectarian Lebanon.]

She refused to comment several times when approached by BBC Trending and did not respond to specific requests to comment on this story in particular.

[Perhaps she thought 'Don't give succour to the enemy.' Or perhaps from past experience she knows that the BBC twists what people say by selective editing, straw-man misrepresentation, or a whole host of other dirty tricks straight out of the Tavistock Institute for psychological warfare.]

The White Helmets operate in rebel-held areas. They have been one of the sources that Western media outlets, including the BBC, have quoted about alleged chemical attacks in Syria.

[Run by an ex-Sandhurst trained mercenary. Perhaps this is why Beeley and Abdallah are getting more attention! They don't source information from puppets and shadows.]

With regard to the incident in Douma, the BBC has not been able independently to verify the group's reports.

[That's very telling and playing it safe and in effect undermines much of what was previously written. It states boldly that they (the BBC) haven't taken a position on a matter that they are calling out other people for commenting about which in itself is taking a position, thus craftily disingenuous.]

"When you're looking at these disinformation campaigns, a lot of the same characters show up for every party,"

[So we've gone from not liking 'their' position to outright quoting, and having a third party calling it disinformation, when the BBC has itself stated it has not been able to verify the White Helmets reports. Ergo anything that people are exercising their right to speak about, because their line is different from the BBC which has a position (but lacks the moral fortitude to state it, because it would be shot full of holes, thus it's fallback is it's thin veneer of impartiality), is de facto disinfo.]

Graphika was commissioned to prepare a report on online chatter by The Syria Campaign, a UK-based advocacy group organisation which campaigns for a democratic future for Syria and supports the White Helmets.

[They're biased then.]

The White Helmets have been the subject of two Oscar-nominated documentary films and have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Obama and Aung San Suu Kyi both have Nobel Peace Prizes and they've been privy to the deaths of many people, from drones, unconstitutional proxy wars, and bombing campaigns to massacres and their subsequent cover-ups. So that statement means precisely nothing.]

These groups were instrumental in making the hashtag #SyriaHoax trend after the chemical weapons attack in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in April 2017.

That hashtag, pushed by Sarah Abdallah and influential American conservative activists, became a worldwide trend on Twitter. Many of those tweeting it claimed that the chemical weapons attack was faked or a hoax.

[How many? And, which it almost certainly was. And it has been debunked by considerably smarter people than wrote this article.]

"Why has the BBC never carried out an investigation into the White Helmets?"

[This is actually the first sensible question in the article.]

The difficulty in reporting on the ground in Syria has opened up an information vacuum which has been partially filled by highly partisan sources,

[Even ones that the BBC has itself embraced, when it suited it's agenda, like the Syrian Observatory (SOHR). And, in actual fact there are many pro and anti-regime sources available on the internet in English. But auntie Beeb would prefer you didn't know that!]

"None of it is journalism; none of it is really based on solid independent reporting,"

[These are my feelings on this article too.]

"The key is that you don't actually start with a narrative, you start with the facts and you establish what may not be true and what may even be disinformation."

[History will subsequently judge the BBC's output in the run-up to the events of 15th April and whether they held themselves to that postulate. I believe they did not.]

And although the activists' follower accounts continue to grow, there is one indication that their influence online might be on the decline compared with last year.

[Ha ha ha. Think again!]

"In the hours after the alleged attack in Douma, "Syria" was a top trending term on Twitter, but the messages by pro-Assad activists were drowned out by reports from a range of news outlets."

The hashtag #SyriaHoax was used around 17,000 times in a week (compared to more than 280,000 times in April 2017), and mostly failed to make Twitter's lists of top trends.

[Twitter squashes any trends that it feels are counter to it's Saudi paymasters wishes. Only meaninglessness is allowed mass appeal these days, and Twitter's slow demise is assured.]

"Do you have a story for us?"

[You wouldn't print it but I've got a headline and it goes a little bit like this;

"BBC Failing to Investigate itself for being biased against uncovering their own biases, by investigating the biases of those it feels most threatened by, and thus ascribes bias from a biased position, which internet investigators are beginning to question en masse because they are being labelled as biased by investigating what the BBC will not because of it's bias."

Which of course the public have to fund.]

The BBC can still spin a world-class yarn, but clearly discerning people are seeking their information elsewhere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43745629