In a recent piece, I commented on how the mainstream media has gone from bad to worse in recent years. This time, I seek to travel to 2011, the year that Libya was transformed from a state which offered the highest living standards in modern African history to a failed state. It was also the year that Hillary Clinton’s state department started agitating for regime change in Syria. This of course ignited the foreign funded conflict that continues in Syria to this day.
By happenstance, I stumbled upon an ABC (US) news piece from 2011, from around the time the US funded Free Syrian Army began a violent insurgency in Damascus.
The piece is a bite-sized portrait of President Bashar al-Assad. In typical MSM style it glosses over important historical and political realities, but surprisingly it is not mean spirited and accurately paints President Assad as a decent, elegant and worldly individual. Few could argue that he isn’t those things.
Today though, one would be hard pressed to find anything in western MSM that paints Assad as anything other than a brutal dictator. He of course is not that today, in spite of fighting a harrowing war against terrorism and illegal occupation on multiple fronts and he was certainly not that when Syria was at peace.
If ABC in 2011 and ABC in 2017 is to be believed, the kindly doctor who never had political aspirations has been transformed from a mild mannered gentleman into a blood thirsty cartoonish tyrant. But what reason can ABC and other outlets offer to justify this change?
The self-evident answer is that the editorial line of MSM has become increasingly militant in order to suit the narratives of US policy. Imagine a media who can waiver from kind words to outright condemnation in order to meld a narrative to government policy.
Some would call that fake news, others would call it an un-democratic press, some would call it dictatorial.
What would you call it?