BBC Reporting conflict in Syria. , page


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 18-6-2012 @ 03:22 AM by woodwardjnr
I found this interesting article written by a BBC editor on their reporting from Syria and their reporting of the massacre in Houla,last month where the BBC reported government forces or a militia connected to the regime, slit the throats of children and women.

In the aftermath of the massacre at Houla last month, initial reports said some of the 49 children and 34 women killed had their throats cut. In Damascus, Western officials told me the subsequent investigation revealed none of those found dead had been killed in such a brutal manner. Moreover, while Syrian forces had shelled the area shortly before the massacre, the details of exactly who carried out the attacks, how and why were still unclear. Whatever the cause, officials fear the attack marks the beginning of the sectarian aspect of the conflict.

In such circumstances, it's more important than ever that we report what we don't know, not merely what we do. In Houla, and now in Qubair, the finger has been pointed at the shabiha, pro-government militia. But tragic death toll aside, the facts are few: it's not clear who ordered the killings - or why.

www.bbc.co.uk...


Interesting this was not reflected in the BBC reporting or even an attempt to set the story straight. If you can't even believe what our own journalists are reporting from Syria. How can any of us really claim to understand what is going on out there.

Given the difficulties of reporting inside Syria, video filed by the opposition on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube may provide some insight into the story on the ground. But stories are never black and white - often shades of grey. Those opposed to President Assad have an agenda. One senior Western official went as far as to describe their YouTube communications strategy as "brilliant". But he also likened it to so-called "psy-ops", brainwashing techniques used by the US and other military to convince people of things that may not necessarily be true.
edit on 18-6-2012 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 18-6-2012 @ 04:23 AM by Hardfelt
And here is BBC Middle East Bureau Chief Paul Danahar speaking with OTM:
The Evolving Propaganda War in Syria

Incidentally, we should see the use of words such as "alleged", "unconfirmed", "so-called", and similar in our news reports. Though they, as any other word, can be misused they're on the whole a reasonable indication of a genuine attempt to balance POV when used in reportage.

edit on 18-6-2012 by Hardfelt because: b'coz

Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Are You Offended??? SO WHAT!!!
  Posted 9 days ago with 97 member flags
The Image of Baphomet: Upsetting Folks Since 1855.
  Posted 9 days ago with 39 member flags
New Scientific Report Destroys Global Warming!
  Posted 7 days ago with 32 member flags
Al Azif: Is The Necronomicon Real?
  Posted 8 days ago with 25 member flags
What The Hell Is This?
  Posted 5 days ago with 9 member flags
How copyright enforcement robots killed the Hugo Awards
  Posted 7 days ago with 4 member flags