Snopes, the company that has been tasked with verifying if news stories on Facebook are “fake” or not, run a story on a recent video from Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett. This video questioned the western media and the narrative that supports the western intervention in the Syrian conflict.
Snopes determined that the video was indeed a fake story.
One of the things I noticed on the Snopes website is they do not allow comments which is strange considering this should be a place in which counter arguments are allowed, in response to their opinions (they do have a lot of opinions hidden within their facts).
The second thing I noticed is they do have a lot of judgements within their articles, showing that they are talking within a specific narrative and not acting independently at all.
Their opening paragraph states-
“The idea that victims of mass tragedies are “recycled” is a common theme among conspiracy theorists”
Which is a instant judgement on stories (many of which have turned out to be true) that are not in line with the paradigm of mainstream reporting.
The word they are using is a word that has been taken out of context to start with. The definition of “Conspiracy Theory” is “a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.” so why would an independent fact checking organisation patronise those who are trying to find information on unexplainable or unexplained events? Is this not what the source of journalism is?
The article goes on to discredit the journalist stating-
“Bartlett has a statement on her own web site that says she supports the current Syrian regime.” due to a comment I could not find on her site saying “I support Syria against a ‘civil’ war that is funded, armed and planned by the western powers and their regional allies with a view to wiping out all resistance to imperialism in the Middle East.”
However I did find this quote on the Facebook page Hands Off Syria with the extra text saying “No to the destruction of Syria. No to a repeat of Iraq and Libya. Victory to SYRIA!.”
It hardly seems like she is trying to do anything destructive and malicious, but more trying to stand up for the rights of the people of Syria.
They continue to say “She is also a contributor at RT, a news site funded by the Russian government.” Not sure why this is relevant as 90% of the American media, whose narrative is shared by Snopes is owned by 6 corporations, all owned by billionaires, with specific political agendas.
Snopes declared the video as a fake, but the only part of the video they discredited with any real concrete argument was that of Bartlett’s claims of “Eva” the child she claimed was “recycled” in news reports to promote the war. However they did not prove that this did not happen.
This would not be the first time something like this has happened. In 1990 Nayirah a young girl claimed Iraqi troops pulled babies out of incubators. Something that was used to promote military action before the Gulf War. It was later found out that Nayirah was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States Read more on this here.
Discrediting a person and discrediting a story are 2 seperate things and for the most part all Snopes did was attempt to take apart Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett and present other opinions to those that she expressed. They ended with the paragraph-
“Bartlett’s claim that the child victim Aya, is “recycled” is the same type of charge levied by conspiracy theorists at parents of children who were killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre. It is a claim also promoted by David Icke, who is best known for believing the world is controlled by Martian lizard people.”
The truth is while I am not promoting David Ickes theories to be true, they are using this to further discredit Eva, and given that most people will look at this statement and think it is crazy to believe that someone would think “the world is controlled by Martian lizard people.” it is an attempt to group the 2 of them together, when in reality (to my understanding) they are both very different in their views.
Snopes are supposed to be impartial, and I know they don’t say David Ickes theories are not true in this article, however the sentence is being used to mock a theory that is an unknown, and a website that are supposed to be should work without judgement on unknowns.
Impartial defined is “treating all rivals or disputants equally.” Snopes are not treating all equally, but just voicing an opinion based on the mainstream collective narrative.
If you turn on Fox News, they are telling a completely different story to RT, you turn on AJ, they are speaking about different issues to the BBC. Maybe somewhere between all the misinformation perpetuated by media organisations there is some truth, and perhaps some media are more honest than others, however unless you are living it and on the front line, chances are you are generating an opinion based on your own bias.
Snopes failed to address what Bartlett has said about-
The white helmets being compromised, unknown and funded by the western government.
There being no independent international fact checking organisations on the ground in East Aleppo.
That the facts that are being reported are being done so from The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights which is a one person organisation that is run by Rami Abdurrahman (Ossama Suleiman) out of Coventry in the UK
It would also be good to hear what they have to say about the 1990 Testimony of Nayirah.
Snopes are now in charge of reporting “fake news” this is a sad time for those who believe in freedom of speech, because people should be taught how to differentiate truth from untruth, not told by an 3rd party organisation! I am not saying the story from Eva Bartlett is true, the fact is- due to so many compromised media outlets, most of us do not know what is happening in Syria and many of the other war zones around the world. However for Snopes to think they are the all seeing, all knowing authority on subjects they reject without thought, stands against what they are supposed to represent. Much love to you all, Luke!
IMAGE CREDIT:gigisomplak / 123RF Stock Photo
I am Luke Miller the author of this article and creator of Potential For Change. I like to blend psychology and spirituality to help you create more happiness in your life.Grab a copy of my free 33 Page Illustrated eBook- Psychology Meets Spirituality- Secrets To A Supercharged Life You Control Here