Syria: major media outlets shaming themselves over Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

| |

Syria: major media outlets shaming themselves over Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

Boutros Hussein, Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

The first reality of all wars is propaganda on the side of the protagonists and once major nations get involved then it turns to open manipulation. Therefore, why are so many major media outlets quoting from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which is completely biased and anti-Bashar al-Assad? More alarming, how does the “main individual” have all the sources of information in distant England when events are happening thousands of miles away?

Of course agencies and articles are often written from a distance but quotes given are meant to be from respectable sources of information. The usage of “human rights” is a coup in itself because it conditions people into thinking respectability. However, it is clear that to quote from such a mysterious organization which was formed prior to the recent crisis in Syria is willful neglect.

Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer Report, comments that The “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” has been cited by the Western media for over a year in nearly every report, regardless of which news agency, be it AFPAPCNNMSNBC,CBSBBC, or any of the largest Western newspapers. One would believe this to be a giant sprawling organization with hundreds of members working hard on the ground, documenting evidence in Syria with photographs and video, while coordinating with foreign press to transparently and objectively “observe” the “human rights” conditions in Syria, as well as demonstrate their methodologies. Surely that is the impression the Western media attempts to relay to its readers.”

“However, astoundingly, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is none of these things. Instead, it is merely a single man, sitting behind a computer in a British apartment, who alleges he receives “phone calls” with information always incriminating the Syrian government, and ever glorifying the “Free Syrian Army.” In fact, Reuters even admitted this in their article, “Coventry – an unlikely home to prominent Syria activist,” and even concedes that this man,”Rami Abdulrahman,” is openly part of the Syrian opposition who seeks the end of the Syrian government. Abdulrahman admits that he had left Syria over 10 years ago, has lived in Britain ever since, and will not return until “al-Assad goes.” 

The above source may not be deemed “mainstream” for many individuals but in an intriguing article by the BBC which quotes Danny Abdul Dayem, then clearly the comment isn’t justified and shows that media sources are being manipulated. In the BBC article called UK Activist Lifting the Lid on Secret Syria it praises the character of Danny Abdul Dayem. The BBC comments that One of the most memorable recent images has been of the activist Danny Abdul Dayem under siege in Homs, filming himself next to a dead child and trying to shame the United Nations into action.”

“Such courage and commitment is unquestionable, but there is clearly nothing objective about the message.” Actually, this individual is clearly “questionable” because both Al Jazeera and CNN have been humiliated by his clear “manipulation of events.” This in itself highlights that the BCC is not doing thorough reporting because Danny Abdul Dayem doesn’t have any credibility left.

In this ( link which was used by CNN it is abundantly clear that Danny Abdul Dayem was not only manipulating events, it was a blatant distortion of reality. Similar videos about Danny Abdul Dayem have been shown whereby only his views can be “questionable.” Therefore, why is the BBC article speaking highly about this individual? Also, does this not also highlight their weakness in using the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights?

In this link ( the RT agency highlights distortions by major agencies like Al Jazeera and CNN. Yet clearly the BBC is being implicated for highlighting and praising individuals like Danny Abdul Dayem. This individual is also highlighted in the above link and this time it appears that he is dictating the noise of gunfire.

If the BBC, CNN, AP, Reuters, New York Times, or whoever, desire to be more objective about their sources, then the format should be changed. Instead the public should be informed in each article that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is anti-government and based in England.”  It also should be stated that “the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is an amalgamation of anti-Bashar al-Assad individuals which are intent on regime change.”  

Patrick Cockburn, the Independent newspaper based in the United Kingdom, comments that “It’s been really rather extraordinary behaviour by media organisations with established reputations…Information – interesting and important though it is – is treated as though it was completely objective reporting.”

“I think this kind of reporting will eventually lead to mistakes by governments, which will respond without realizing what the real situation is on the ground.”

Indeed, the BBC was caught out by a terrible error of judgment by The Daily Telegraph, a British based newspaper (link at the end of the article). Of course, some individuals are stating that the error of judgment was too serious to be a mistake and that it was part of the anti-Syria propaganda machine. However, individuals should make their own mind up because no agency is immune from making mistakes.

Yet, with the BBC praising Danny Abdul Dayem and using information from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the omens don’t look good. In fairness to the BBC they are not alone because errors by CNN, Al Jazeera, and a host of agencies, all point to either a major propaganda war which is extremely dangerous – or it points to complete lack of professionalism and igniting sectarianism by willful reporting.

It is abundantly clear that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights supports “government change” in Syria. It could also be argued that “Human Rights” after Syrian Observatory is open manipulation of language because in theory this entity is only focused on government change. Also, given the closeness to certain elites in the United Kingdom it does raise the issue of credibility to a different level. Therefore, why is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights being used by so many international agencies given the “murky” aspect of this so-called entity?  MUST SEE VIDEO – Syria - CNN even still tries to manipulate and blame Syrian government – of course, more shaming the individuals involved

Comments are closed