BBC: Foxes Guarding the Hen House

In recent years a number of mainstream outlets have produced watchdog shows that attempt to navigate the larger media world and its increasingly conflicting and contradictory presentation of facts and narratives. These shows are meant to help one discern the truth and of course it is assumed that whatever the said outlet is, (such as the BBC) – it is in fact a guardian of it.

I have long argued that mainstream media is corrupt and by means of its framing and strategic omissions is guilty of producing a great deal of misinformation – with occasional forays into blatant disinformation. Rarely do mainstream outlets tell bold-faced lies. They don't have to. Their audiences are already conditioned and there are many assumed values and judgments that are never questioned. The bias can sometimes be blatant but under normal circumstances the audience won't pick up on it. I'm not here referring to 'Left wing' bias but to American or Western bias, or the basic assumptions of systems like democracy or capitalism. These are just assumed, taken as givens.

Consequently, these outlets can fall into some very misleading coverage of events – especially when it comes to international news. Often other cultures or states do not share the values or assumptions of Western media outlets like the BBC, CNN, NPR, or one of the networks and so their views can seem strange or even malicious and may in fact be – but not always. And it's quite out of the realm of possibility that these same Western-oriented outlets would even for a moment allow their assumptions to be challenged or hear critical voices or ideas that would represent an existential threat to the Western system and its supposed (and yet rather malleable) values. Most Western media is privatised and subservient to its corporate masters – hence the dominant infotainment and commercial flavour to most coverage. Outlets like the BBC and NPR are not state entities per se but at the same time are far from being truly independent. A little more serious in their coverage, nevertheless they hardly qualify as adversarial.

Other outlets like FOX are outright deception mills that engage in blatant disinformation, distortion, and are agenda-driven on a much different level than what is seen in conventional outlets. All these institutions have agendas and one can see this blatantly during episodes like the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq Invasion or the coverage of Russia over the past decade – and especially in how The Ukraine War is covered.

But with the FOX channel you clearly have editorial lines that are pursued and the coverage is meant to work-up the audience and the guests and the generally agitated tone augments this. It's blatantly deceptive as opposed to the more subtle manipulation of the mainstream.

As long as there are outlets like FOX, groups like the BBC and NPR can set themselves up as 'discerners' and then produce programmes that will help the viewer or listener navigate the storm. And yet this is both ridiculous and insulting.

For example the other day while listening to BBC coverage of Syria's re-admission to the Arab League, it was all too clear the host of the show took great umbrage at this move – as do many in UK government. The UK and US have been leaders in the anti-Assad campaign. While British intelligence helped fuel the disinformation through outlets like the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (SOHR) and White Helmets, the Americans supported the al Qaeda and ISIS-affiliated Islamists and when the proxy operation was thwarted, the US military swept in and occupied the eastern zone of the country.

The BBC, NPR, and other such outlets have been consistently deceptive and obfuscatory regarding the coverage of Syria, hiding the realities, and promoting state-sponsored lies even in the face of contrary evidence – some of the questionable and disproven narratives surrounding chemical attacks are part of this, as is the failure to accurately report the fact that the US allied with the very Islamic forces it was ostensibly fighting in the larger War on Terror. The US occupation of Eastern Syria (which is completely illegal under international law) is glossed over as was the brutal and highly destructive bombing campaigns in which cities like Raqqa and Mosul (in Iraq) were flattened – actions that would be strongly condemned (probably as war crimes) had they been perpetrated by anyone else. Further the SOHR and White Helmets needed to be called out and when they were by independent and alternative media elements, the mainstream outlets circled that wagons and produced cover-up documentaries and attempted to turn White Helmets founder James Le Mesurier (who died under rather suspicious circumstances) into some kind of martyr. Supposedly he committed suicide due to a depression brought on by his alternative media detractors – others believe he was murdered, or if he did commit suicide, it was due to other reasons surrounding his involvement with either Islamists or intelligence agencies. But I digress.

Clearly the BBC host did not like the Arab League move as both London and Washington remain bitter over their failed campaign to oust Assad – long a goal of the Neo-Cons in Washington and their Israeli allies. The failure was made all the more bitter as it was the Iranians and Russians that thwarted the regime change operation.

The Biden Administration has attempted to spin these developments in Syria communicating in ambiguous terms its response to the situation. On the one hand Washington has been recalcitrant with its sanctions regime – even to the point of blocking earthquake aid, a move which undoubtedly killed many people. Facing sweeping diplomatic defeats, there's little point in continuing to focus on Syria – especially in light of the China-brokered Saudi-Iranian peace deal. It's a case of game over – and yet the US (at present) has not made any moves to vacate Eastern Syria and its oilfields.

The truth is that in light of the peace deal, the anti-Assad campaign moves from a side-show to being almost meaningless. The whole thing was always about Iran and if (apart from Israel) the US campaign against Tehran is going to lose critical regional (Arab) support – there's little point in investing a great deal of energy on this angle. Besides, the US is desperate to disentangle itself from the Middle East and the wars and instability it helped to generate. Russia and China are the current focus of US militarism and so the Biden administration is putting Syria on the back-burner.

But the BBC aggressively promoted the Western narrative about Syria for many years – and in such a skewed and dishonest fashion that it undoubtedly stirred passions – even if not based entirely on reality. For the BBC such a move by the Arab League is a slap in the face and the failure of the Biden administration to condemn it more aggressively represents some kind of moral failing – which all things considered is somewhat laughable. And for the BBC, the move is also an affront to UK foreign policy and its efforts.

And so when looking for commentary, did the BBC turn to the Biden administration, or perhaps some academic, or journalist that has long covered the story?

No, they trotted out some hack from the Trump administration who (like his master) does not understand the situation but instead utilised the platform to take shots at Biden and attempt to trash him for being weak. It was ridiculous coverage and did nothing to help a listener understand what is happening or why.

A short time later I was listening to another podcast and the BBC was pushing its new discernment programme – to help listeners navigate the news. They claim that on 'The Global Jigsaw' – not everything is what it seems and they ask 'how can we understand the world better, and the agendas driving those narratives'? They speak of 'powerful interests that battle to influence your views' – and they're not?

Give me a break. What utter nonsense.