Information that discredited the Corporate Media Propaganda employed to justify invading Iraq was known and reported as Robert Parry points out in the excerpt below...most Americans accepted the propaganda and the US and its Allies marched to WAR creating the current disaster in the Middle East.
Although the Chilcot Report is a whitewash in some respects, it could be argued that invading Iraq was really about OIL after all.
And the rest? Is this really about the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP)?
A Deeper Problem
But the problem goes much deeper than a couple of Web sites and bloggers who find it professionally uplifting to reinforce propaganda themes from NATO and other Western interests. The bigger danger is the role played by the mainstream media in creating an echo chamber to amplify the disinformation coming from these amateurs.
Just as The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major outlets swallowed the bogus stories about Iraq’s WMD in 2002-2003, they have happily dined on similarly dubious fare about Syria, Ukraine and Russia.
And just as with the Iraq disaster, when those of us who challenged the WMD “group think” were dismissed as “Saddam apologists,” now we’re called “Assad apologists” or “Putin apologists” or simply “hacks” who are “all mouth, no trousers” – whatever that means.
FOCUS: Robert Parry | Will NYT Retract Latest Anti-Russian 'Fraud'?
Robert Parry, Consortium News
Parry writes: "In covering the new Cold War, The New York Times has lost its journalistic bearings, serving as a crude propaganda outlet publishing outlandish anti-Russian claims that may cross the line into fraud."
READ MORE
Robert Parry, Consortium News
Parry writes: "In covering the new Cold War, The New York Times has lost its journalistic bearings, serving as a crude propaganda outlet publishing outlandish anti-Russian claims that may cross the line into fraud."
READ MORE
Contribute to RSN
No comments:
Post a Comment