Russ Baker

Rosemarie Colvin holds a picture of her daughter, Marie
Colvin, who was killed in Syria reporting on crimes against
humanity. (Photo: Rashed Mian/Long Island Press)

Daniel McAdams: Implosion of The Houla Massacre Story
Stephen Lendman: Stepped Up Media War on Syria

The news out of Syria gets more and more appalling. But so does the quality of the journalism. Here’s an example, from the BBC dated May 26:

At least 90 people, including many children, have been killed in Syria’s restive Homs province, opposition activists say, calling it a “massacre”.

They said scores were wounded in the violence in Houla, as government forces shelled and attacked the town.

Shocking footage has emerged of the bodies of children killed as part of one the bloodiest attacks in one area since a nominal truce began in April.

The UN said international monitors were heading to the area.

BBC then quotes the wire service AP:

An activist in Houla told the Associated Press news agency that troops began the assault on Houla after an anti-regime demonstration following Muslim prayers on Friday.

The assault began with artillery shelling which killed 12, he said – but scores more were butchered when pro-regime thugs known as “shabiha” then stormed the area.

And here’s UPI:

DAMASCUS, Syria, May 26 (UPI) — At least 88 people, many of them children, were killed in a town in the restive province of Homs in Syria in an attack by government forces, activists said.

All these reports were based almost entirely on the word from activists on one side in the conflict, not from journalists or neutral observers. That is not journalism. Why are there not more journalists actually in these places reporting? In the past, reporters always managed to get into conflict zones. And, notwithstanding Syrian government controls on access to these areas and the obvious physical dangers attendant to work in such places, news organizations should be able to hire Syrians who will be diligent, careful and precise.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Russia is Washington's main military rival. Each nation has powerful nuclear arsenals and delivery systems able to destroy the other.

On December 31, 1999, Russia's lost decade under Boris Yeltsin ended. Vladimir Putin replaced him. Yeltsin institutionalized "shock therapy." Economic genocide followed. GDP plunged 50%. Life expectancy fell. Democratic freedoms died. An oligarch class accumulated enormous wealth at the expense of millions of harmed Russians. Contemptuously ignoring essential needs, human rights and civil liberties, Yeltsin let corruption and criminality flourish. One scandal followed another. Money-laundering became sport. Billions in stolen wealth were hidden in Western banks or offshore tax havens. Nonetheless, Western governments and media scoundrels loved him. Decades more may be needed to recover from the human wreckage he caused.

Putin's governing style differs. He rejects US imperialism. He opposes foreign intervention. In 2007, he condemned Washington's quest for unipolar global dominance “through a system which has nothing to do with democracy."

He points fingers West. He says we're "witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of military force in international relations."

It's "plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." Political settlements become impossible. America won't tolerate them.

Putin accuses Washington of spurning international norms and principles. It pursues a reckless arms race. It “overstepped its national borders in almost all spheres." It spurns "basic principles of international law."

It chooses war, not peace. It violates national sovereignty rights. It undermines global stability. It considers aggression a divine right. It threatens humanity.

Its humanitarian wars destroy nations to save them. At issue is global dominance, not liberation. Putin is fundamentally opposed. As a result, media scoundrels bash him.

More »

David Michael Green

People waiting in line for voting to open in Milwaukee. Wis-
consin Republican Gov. Scott Walker took on Democratic
challenger Tom Barrett in a recall election.

I could tell you that my heart was broken by what happened in Wisconsin this week, but in truth that’s not quite accurate.

I grew into political awareness and maturity in the middle of the 1970s. For people my age, then, our entire adult lives have been one long witness to the dismantling of that which we grew up taking for granted as a foundation for any further progress that might come. We lived in the relatively egalitarian country of the New Deal and the Great Society, with its robust middle class and a measure of earnest compassion for the poor. Today, that seems like a foreign country, if not a remote planet.

Over the course of our adult lives:

We watched in shock and horror as the country turned to a Hollywood washout, who was literally a national joke candidate five years earlier, and made him president, following him down every path of joyful self-destruction and absurd deceit.

More »