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;
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;
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.