Editorials For War

Someone recently tweeted something along the lines of… “To get an idea of a tabloids stance read its headlines and to get an idea of a broadsheets stance read its editorials”.

I’ve been meaning to write about the Guardians editorials on Syria for some time as almost every single one of them objectifies the situation in Syria in a way that promotes confrontation with the regime and peddles a good vs bad narrative for its readers to digest.

Whether it’s an editorial during the very early days of the conflict which overtly demands Syria face tough and crippling sanctions or an editorial after 2 years of civil war (one which could see Assad and his family killed) which announces Bashar al-Assad actually wanted this war in the first place. It reads;

“Two years after an Arab spring uprising that saw hundreds of thousands of unarmed Syrians filling the streets of provincial cities, Bashar al-Assad has got the conflict that he wanted”

Whether it’s an editorial that suggests the Assad regime has been carrying out false flag car bombings (which in turn kill his own security team) or an editorial that accuses Assad of actively seeking a larger, more serious international conflict, by stating;

“Assad is doing his utmost to provoke a Turkish incursion.”

Whether it’s an editorial that tells us how Assad’s “military hold is slipping” or it’s his “last stand or that Russian support for the regime was doomed to failure from the start” and how the Russian government is now “having second thoughts when it quite clearly isn’t.

The 7 editorial pieces that I have linked to in this blog post have been written anonymously but all of them seem to face in the same direction. Towards accusation & confrontation.


“Terrorists” or opposition fighters?

On Monday the 8th of April 2013, a suicide car bomb was detonated in the business district of Damascus which killed at least 15 people. The Guardian posted the following article.

It is the final few paragraphs and phrases which caught my eye with regards to this blog.

“There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, but state media blamed “terrorists”, a term the government uses for opposition fighters. Opposition groups accused the government of carrying out the attack”

The language used to report this horrific crime and how the word “terrorists” is placed in quotation marks seems to call into question how suicide car bombers should be referred to.

History tells us that if this type of event were to occur inside the UK or US – the term “terrorists” would be used without question or hesitation by the Guardian and other mainstream media.

The blatant acts of terrorism inside Syria over the last few years have been receiving special treatment from Western backed news organisations and this article is just one example of how.