Category: propaganda

The BBC has formally rejected complaints that …

The BBC has formally rejected complaints that its Newsnight programme Photoshopped an image of Jeremy Corbyn to make him look “more Russian”, insisting that the programme’s use of the picture was “impartial and fair”.

The corporation’s complaints unit said the decision to show a photo of the Labour
leader wearing a “Lenin-style cap” in front of the Moscow skyline was
not designed to convey an impression of pro-Russian sympathy on Corbyn’s
part but was in keeping with an editorial decision made on the basis of
“sound news judgment”.

Another reminder:

The BBC’s investigation into its own bias is a ridiculously contradictory whitewash


Whether you like Jeremy Corbyn or not, it’s easy to see that the state operated broadcaster casting the main political opposition as agents of a foreign power is the kind of extreme propaganda you’d expect to see in a tyrannical state like Russia, rather than a liberal western European democracy.

After a flood of complaints about their decision to red tint and alter a picture of Jeremy Corbyn and photoshop it onto a picture of the Kremlin, the BBC investigated itself and found that their decision to do that was totally “fair and impartial”!

This latest ruling is a truly Orwellian piece of propaganda which focuses heavily on Corbyn’s hat, and completely ignores the glaring contradiction between their initial responses to the scandal, and the findings of this report.

The report tries to claim that it is supposedly “immediately apparent to viewers that the contrast and colour balance of the photo had been adjusted to create a stylised image but this was standard practice on the programme” but if we compare this excuse with their initial excuse we find a glaring contradiction.

Their initial excuse was that they’d used the same Kremlin background for the Tory defence secretary Gavin Williamson, the whole thing falls to bits, because in Williamson’s case they didn’t red-tint or otherwise alter the image, and they positioned the picture of Williamson facing away from the Kremlin rather than merging him in to create a “stylised image”.

So their current excuse that it’s “standard practice” to manipulate photos to create “stylised images” is totally contradicted by the picture that they Tweeted out as their previous excuse!

To see the excuse morph from one thing to another like this is extraordinary, especially when one excuse clearly contradicts the other.

Even if you actually dislike Jeremy Corbyn, you’d have to be completely cracked to agree with the BBC’s whitewash conclusion that there are supposedly “no grounds for regarding the contents of the item as less than impartial or fair to Mr Corbyn”, especially given the blatantly contradictory excuses the BBC have pushed out to justify it.

Since Theresa May came to power in 2016 the Tories have accepted £800,000+ in donations from Russian oligarchs and Putin cronies, and the Tories have repeatedly obstructed Jeremy Corbyn’s efforts to clamp down on all the Russian dark money flowing into the City of London, yet it’s not Theresa May portrayed as a Putin stooge on the BBC, it’s Jeremy Corbyn … And what’s even worse is that they actually expect people to be gullible enough to swallow their Orwellian claims that using this photoshopped image as their background was completely “fair and impartial”!

This isn’t even the first time the BBC has been caught photoshopping images of Jeremy Corbyn to make him look bad. In the run up to the 2017 General Election they photoshopped him into a picture with Osama Bin Laden, and after the Trump election they photoshopped a Trump “Make America Great Again” baseball cap onto his head.

Each time they create anti-Corbyn photoshop propaganda like this they generate more complaints and controversy, but they keep on doing it, and then keep on completely absolving themselves of blame like petulant children. 

The more people complain about their transparent bias that we’re all being made to subsidise through our TV licences, the more biased propaganda they feel inclined to put out, and the more Orwellian the excuses they come up with to defend the petulant contrarianism of their producers.

If they’d even vaguely admitted that the background was poorly considered and politically biased, or that there was a significant discrepancy between their treatment of the Tory defence secretary and Jeremy Corbyn, then we could perhaps believe that they intend to learn from their mistakes and recommit themselves to political impartiality.


But given their whitewash the conclusions are obvious. If a state funded and supposedly impartial broadcaster can look at such a transparently biased editorial decision and conclude that they did absolutely nothing wrong, that’s an open declaration that they see no problem with the dissemination of blatant anti-Corbyn propaganda.

Furthermore it’s clearly an open invitation to BBC politics producers to continue disseminating anti-Corbyn propaganda, safe in the knowledge that no matter how obviously biased it is, any BBC investigation will be another total whitewash. 

This whitewash is an open declaration that the BBC intends to continue disseminating anti-Corbyn propaganda, and they have absolutely no intention of admitting that this is what they’ve been doing, or that it is wrong.

 Another Angry Voice  is a “Pay As You Feel” website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.



OR

The mass media serve as a system for communica…

image

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and
symbols to the general populace. In a world of
concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill
this role requires systematic propaganda.

In countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a
state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media, makes it clear that the media
serve the ends of a dominant elite.

The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents
occurs so naturally
that media news people are able to convince themselves that they choose and
interpret the news “objectively” and on the basis of professional news
values.

In sum, a propaganda approach to media coverage suggests a systematic
and highly political dichotomization in news coverage based on
serviceability to important domestic power interests.

A Propaganda Model by Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky

Ultra-cynical Tories are blaming Labour for the consequences of their own party’s actions

Ultra-cynical Tories in Southampton are so desperate for power that they’re blaming Labour for the consequences of their own party’s actions in government.

The reason council tax bills are going up while services are worse than ever is that the austerity fixated Tories in government have cut the local government budget by a whopping 67% since 2010
In Southampton the result of this hard-right ideologically driven Tory madness is a £485 per household cut to the council’s budget.


It’s not just Southampton either, these brutal hard-right Tory cuts have left councils up and down the country with no choice but to ruthlessly slash back local services (bin collections, libraries, leisure centres, social care, highways maintenance, children’s services, planning departments, street cleaning …) to save money, whilst raising Council Tax as much as they can get away with in order to plug the gaps in the most critical services (domestic abuse shelters, children’s services, care services for the elderly and infirm) in order to prevent the most damaging outcomes (domestic abuse, child abuse, deaths).

And make no mistake, these Tory cuts weren’t driven by necessity, they were driven by the Tory desperation to ensure the upwards redistribution of wealth via massive tax breaks and handouts to corporations and the mega-rich.

Just imagine the cynicism of knowing that your own party’s ideological fixation with hard-right austerity dogma has caused this dreadful situation, but deciding to print up a load of propaganda to blame your political opponents for it.

That’s the cynicism of the Tories in a nutshell. Deliberately and systematically wrecking local government services up and down the country for eight ruinous years, then trying to actually take over local councils that have been gutted by this strategic wrecking by blaming the local councils themselves for the appalling financial position that Westminster Tories have left them in.

The really sad thing is that because of the mainstream media refusal to critique Tory austerity dogma as the disastrous hard-right fanaticism it so obviously is, a lot of people will be unaware of the massive cuts the austerity obsessed Tories have imposed on their own local council, and will actually believe this kind of outrageous Tory propaganda when it gets shoved through their door.

 Another Angry Voice  is a “Pay As You Feel” website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.



OR

Jacob Rees-Mogg is cynically blaming the EU for the horrible consequences of his own actions



In January 2014 Jacob Rees-Mogg was one of many Tory and Lib-Dem politicians to actively vote in favour of Theresa May’s vile UKIP-pandering anti-immigrant legislation that was subsequently used to discriminate against Windrush British citizens.

You can see Rees-Mogg’s support for this legislation on the Hansard Parliamentary record.

Let’s not pretend that Rees-Mogg and his Tory colleagues were not warned that these rules could be used to discriminate against British citizens without the documentation to prove their nationality, because they were warned by Diane Abbott during the parliamentary debate, and that warning was brushed off with a dose of Theresa May’s ridiculously evasive question-dodging waffle.

Rees-Mogg knows perfectly well that it was the legislation that he voted in favour of that created this atmosphere of intimidation and discrimination against Windrush Brits, yet he’s popped up on the front page of the Daily Telegraph to spin the extraordinary tale that the EU and pro-Europeans are to blame for the consequences of the UKIP-pandering legislation that he (and most of the other Tory Brextremists) actively voted in favour of.

Here’s what he said: “We are not the sort of country that demands to see your papers, but I’m afraid pro-Europeans think we should be They buy into the EU-style relationship between individual and state. It’s a shift to state being powerful and individual being weak”

Yet Rees-Mogg knows perfectly well that he voted in favour of Theresa May’s anti-immigrant legislation in order to deny deny housing, employment, social security, pensions, and NHS care to people without the documentation to prove that they are British citizens. 

He knows perfectly well that he voted in favour of Theresa May’s legislation to weaken the rights of the individual and to give the state far more powers to discriminate against those without documentation to prove that they’re British citizens.

Aside from the fact that Rees-Mogg has completely evaded taking responsibility for his own actions or apologising for supporting such rotten legislation, he’s clearly taking the opportunistic cowards’ approach of blaming others for what he did himself.

It’s bad enough that Rees-Mogg has sunk to the level of blaming his political opponents for the dire consequences of his own actions. But worse than that is the way the Daily Telegraph allowed him to spew this reality-reversing gibberish on their front page, and that other pro-Brexit rags like the Express and Daily Mail rapidly churnalised this rubbish into anti-EU stories of their own.

 Another Angry Voice  is a “Pay As You Feel” website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.



OR

Andrew Marr: “How can you know that I’m self-c…

Andrew Marr: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..”

Noam Chomsky:
“I’m
not saying you’re self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re
saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different,
you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”

[FULL INTERVIEW LINK]

What is a Corbyn’s hat distraction tactic?


In recent weeks a new kind of propaganda strategy has been deployed in order to muddy the waters and get people quibbling over trivial details to distract attention away from the main issue.

It’s a specific kind of distraction tactic based on getting people arguing over the trivial minutiae of a subject rather than the big picture, and I’ll explain why I’ve decided to coin the term “Corbyn’s hat” distraction tactic to describe it.

Corbyn’s hat

The reason I’ve decided to call this kind of propaganda ploy a “Corbyn’s hat” distraction tactic is that the most glaring example I’ve ever seen to date involved sidetracking an important debate about broadcaster bias into a heated argument over Jeremy Corbyn’s hat.

The bigger issue was that the BBC (which is supposed to be a politically impartial state broadcaster) made the extraordinary decision to mock up a giant poster of a red-tinted Jeremy Corbyn in front of the Kremlin to use for the background of one of their shows in which Corbyn’s evidence-seeking stance on the Sailsbury poisoning was ridiculed and no mention of the £800,000+ Theresa May’s Tories have taken in donations from Russian oligarchs and Putin cronies.
 

This wasn’t the first time the British state broadcaster has used photoshop to attack Jeremy Corbyn, they even photoshopped him with Osama Bin Laden during a debate on terrorism during the 2017 General Election.

This staggeringly biased editorial decision displayed the kind of extreme pro-government anti-opposition bias you’d actually expect to see in Putin’s Russia, so it’s no surprise that it generated a lot of complaints, but somehow the BBC and their mates in the establishment club managed to focus the debate down onto the trivial issue of whether Jeremy Corbyn’s hat had been photoshopped.

The literal big picture (that the supposedly impartial BBC blatantly photoshopped a red-tinted picture of Jeremy Corbyn onto the Kremlin) was lost in a ridiculous quibble over whether the BBC had also altered Jeremy Corbyn’s hat to make it look more Russian, with hard-right Tories and so-called ‘centrists’ alike pouring scorn on the “Corbyn’s hat” debate as if that was the core issue, rather than an utterly trivial side issue distraction away from the Putineqsue behaviour of the BBC.

You couldn’t really get a clearer example of people quibbling over a trivial issue to distract from the big picture when the big picture was literally a big picture.

Effectiveness

Getting people quibbling over a trivial side issue rather than thinking about the big picture is distinct from other propaganda distraction tactics like “whataboutery” (trying to deflect attention onto a different subject altogether) and the “dead cat” tactic (doing, saying, or revealing something so grotesque that public attention is diverted away from the serious issue at hand) because it doesn’t actually change the subject of the debate, it just narrows it down to such an extent that people end up quibbling over one very specific aspect of the subject, rather than viewing the subject in its broader context.

This “Corbyn’s hat” type distraction strategy is highly effective because it’s not an obvious “look! a squirrel” kind of distraction, it’s a distraction that involves directing attention at a trivial aspect of the subject, which means that people could actually conclude that they’ve debated the subject and come to a conclusion on it, even though they’ve completely sidetracked away from the main issue.

Clearly a distraction tactic that allows the victim to erroneously believe that they’ve actually debated and understood the wider subject is a much more effective form of propaganda than a simplistic ploy to switch their attention to another matter altogether.

Windrush landing cards

Theresa May created the Windrush scandal by introducing vile UKIP-pandering anti-migrant legislation in 2014. Legislation that has resulted in British citizens without documentation being denied employment, denied housing, denied social security, denied pensions, and denied NHS care. These dehumanising and discriminatory rules have left thousands living in fear of imprisonment and deportation from their own country.

In a desperate attempt to deflect blame away from herself Theresa May stood at the dispatch box and misled parliament by claiming that the decision to destroy Windrush landing cards was taken by Labour in 2009.

It didn’t matter that the Home Office had already admitted that the landing cards were destroyed in October 2010, under Theresa May’s watch, her misleading claim was the ideal “Corbyn’s hat” distraction for the Tory propaganda machine, and the debate waged for the rest of the day over who destroyed the landing cards.

The fact is that even if Labour had destroyed them, which they didn’t, it was only because of Theresa May’s vile Faragist anti-immigrant legislation that the Windrush scandal developed.

But by sidetracking the debate onto who destroyed the Windrush landing cards the Tory propaganda machine created the misleading impression that there’s some kind of debate over whether Labour or the Tories were to blame, when the indisputable reality is that Theresa May’s grotesque UKIP-pandering attack on immigrants is to blame.

Be vigilant

Using a “Corbyn’s hat” distraction to deliberately sidetrack the debate into ridiculous quibbling over a minor aspect of the issue is clearly and undeniably an effective propaganda strategy, so be vigilant, and don’t be afraid to call out “Corbyn’s hat” distraction tactics the next time you see this kind of propaganda in action.

 Another Angry Voice  is a “Pay As You Feel” website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.



OR
This article was part of the “What is … ?” series. To see more articles in the series, click here.

Theresa May’s despicable response to the Windrush scandal

The Tories know that their treatment of Windrush citizens has been absolutely despicable, but instead of taking personal responsibility for it and resigning, they’ve resorted to the most ridiculous campaign of bluster, smears, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

The absurd Data Protection excuse


When a whistleblower revealed that the Tories had deliberately destroyed the archive of landing cards from the Windrush generation the first Tory instinct was to lie their way out of trouble.

The Tories initially tried to claim that the archives were destroyed because of Data Protection concerns.

The first thing to note is that this is a Tory government that wilfully sold off our private NHS medical data to drug companies and health insurers without our consent. To hear them suddenly pretending that they care about data protection laws is most absurd.

The next thing to note is that Data Protection rules have a very clear exemption for material of historical importance. You’d have to be completely cracked to imagine that the boarding cards of the Windrush generation who came to help Britian rebuild after WWII had no historical significance whatever and needed to be lobbed into a skip.

And one final point on this ridiculous excuse is that *if* the Tories know for a fact that data protection concerns really were their motivation for destroying these documents, they know who authorised the destruction, but they’re hiding that information from the public domain presumably because it’s harmful to their party.

Anti-Semitism smears

When Theresa May was cornered by Jeremy Corbyn on the destruction of the Windrush boarding cards she resorted to the age-old Tory tactic of misdirecting attention with smears. She said she was going to ignore the question because Jeremy Corbyn has supposedly “let anti-Semitism run rife through his party”.

The facts of the matter are difficult to square with Theresa May’s smear-mongering: Anti-Semitic views are very much more common in the Tory ranks than in the Labour ranks. Labour Party members are significantly less likely to hold anti-Semitic views than the general public, rates of anti-Semitism have declined dramatically since Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader in 2015, and last but not least Theresa May’s vile anti-immigrant ‘hostile environment’ legislation was all about attracting the extreme-right ultranationalist blue-kip demographic who are by far and away the most anti-Semitic demographic of all.

Denial of personal responsibility

The legislation that has been used to dehumanise, deny employment and healthcare, and deport Windrush citizens was introduced in 2014 by Theresa May. She was warned of the dangers at the time. In the 3rd reading parliamentary debate Diane Abbott clearly raised the problem of Theresa May’s harsh new immigration rules being used against British citizens, but Theresa May just fobbed it off with a load of evasive waffle.

Theresa May was warned at the time that her attack on immigrants could end up wrecking the lives of people who have every right to live here, she ignored it, and now she thinks that she can just say “sorry” and wash her hands of responsibility, rather than offering her resignation like anyone with a shred of integrity would do.

Absurd misdirection

Despite the Home Office having admitted that they destroyed the Windrush landing cards Theresa May decided to blame the decision on Labour with a truly ridiculous piece of misdirection (one that was lapped up and uncritically reported by the right-wing press and the BBC).

The misdirection involved switching two very distinct decisions. In 2009 the Labour run Home Office made the decision to move out of the Croydon building in which the Windrush landing cards were kept. And in 2010, under Theresa May’s watch, the Home Office made the decision to destroy the cards rather than find a place for them in the new building.

By switching decision one and decision two to blame Labour for her own department’s decision, Theresa May is once again assuming the general public to be a total bunch of irredeemable half-wits who couldn’t tell the difference between a blue frog and a yellow frog because they’re both frogs.

Another assumption they’re making is that we’re so dim-witted that we’ll simply forget that they openly admitted destroying the documents just one day previously (using their absurd data protection story).

Conclusion

If you’re the kind of person who abhors institutional racism and believes that people should take personal responsibility for their own errors and misjudgements, Theresa May’s actions in regards to the Windrush scandal should sicken you to the core.

If however you’re totally chilled about institutional racism and prefer your politicians to resort to ridiculously responsibility evasion, unconvincing stories, blatant smears, cynical misdirections, and outright lies the instant they get caught doing anything wrong, then Theresa May’s behaviour should have you purring with pride in a job well done.

 Another Angry Voice  is a “Pay As You Feel” website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.



OR

Why are the UK establishment class waging ideological war on the OPCW?

Anyone who has been paying attention for the last few weeks must have noticed that the Tory government has launched a sustained ideological attack on the Organisation of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

This UK establishment attack on the Nobel Peace Prize winning organisation seemed to begin as a means of having a dig at Jeremy Corbyn over his insistence that the rules of the Chemical Weapons Convention should be followed in relation to the Salisbury poisoning.

Seeing Tories and the yapping dogs of the mainstream press attacking and ridiculing the OPCW seemed like the latest absurd manifestation of the anti-Corbyn agenda. It seemed that people were so unhinged in their desperation to criticise Corbyn that they’d actually resort to demeaning and ridiculing an organisation that is dedicated to ridding the world of chemical and biological weapons in order to score points against him.

But then the Syria airstrikes made it absolutely clear that this is way bigger than the myopic anti-Corbyn agenda of the British establishment class, these people have undeniably declared some kind of crazed ideological war on the OPCW.

The first thing that a lot of people noticed was that Theresa May rushed the decision to carry out airstrikes to jump the gun on the OPCW inspectors who were making their way to Douma in order to investigate the alleged chemical weapons attack.

But it doesn’t stop there, not only did Theresa May deliberately undermine the OPCW by attacking before their inspectors could establish the facts about her stated justification for the attack, the targets of the attack were Syrian government facilities that had been given the all clear by the OPCW just weeks before.

Claiming that OPCW approved facilities are actually chemical weapons factories and then destroying them is about the most blatant way of undermining the authority of the OPCW you could imagine, especially if it turns out that the UK had intelligence that the site was a chemical weapons plant and they refused to share their information with the OPCW so they could investigate.

And then the UK envoy to the OPCW Peter Wilson has come out swinging to attack the institution with claims that “the time has come for all members of this executive council to take a stand. Too many duck the responsibility that comes with being a member of this council”.

What can he possibly mean by this? That the OPCW should come out in support of airstrikes against facilities they green-lighted just weeks beforehand based on an alleged chemical weapons attack they weren’t even allowed to investigate before the attacks were launched?

It’s as if the UK establishment are desperate to attack and undermine the OPCW because they want to appoint themselves the ultimate moral arbiters on chemical weapons.

They want to be able to launch military attacks against one regime for the alleged use of chemical weapons without presenting their evidence, and without consulting parliament, yet  turn a total blind eye when their allies (Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States) use chemical weapons on civilians.

And perhaps the most ridiculous facet of this British establishment drive to undermine the OPCW and anoint themselves the ultimate moral arbiters of chemical weapons use, is that as recently as 2012 the UK government granted export licences for the sale of Sarin precursor chemicals to Syria!

Of course the UK establishment will try to use misdirection tactics to dress this up as an “us vs them” “good vs evil” conflict between Britain and the baddies (“if you scrutinise us you’re siding with Putin/Assad” type nonsense). But it’s obvious to anyone who is not a fool that the real debates should be raging over whether the Prime Minister gets to cynically bypass parliament to launch military attacks because she fears she’d lose the vote, and why the UK establishment suddenly seem so hellbent on attacking, sidelining, obstructing, and undermining the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

It really is quite simple: If our political establishment class are waging an ideological war against a Nobel Peace Prize winning organisation which is dedicated to the eradication of chemical and biological weapons, maybe, just maybe, they might not be quite the good guys they’re trying to portray themselves as?


 Another Angry Voice  is a “Pay As You Feel” website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.



OR

The timeline of shame


In March 2018 the Saudi tyrant Mohammed bin Salman began a month-long tour of Western nations, securing new arms deals with Britain, the United States, and France.

In early March 2018 the brutal Islamist tyrant received a warm Tory welcome in London. Against a backdrop of widespread criticism of the repressive Saudi regime and their ongoing campaign of war crimes in Yemen, Theresa May agreed a new arms deal with the Saudi regime to supply them 48 Typhoon jets. This deal was signed off by the UK government despite their full knowledge that the Saudis have been using British-manufactured weapons to commit horrific war crimes.

Later that month Bin Salman rocked up in the United States to meet Donald Trump. The President of the United States demeaned his office and his nation by begging the Saudi tyrant to share the wealth by buying more American-manufactured weapons. The trip concluded with a new $670 million deal to supply the repressive kingdom with anti-tank missiles and spare parts for tanks and helicopters.

And then Bin Salman appeared in Paris to meet Emmanuel Macron. The trip concluded with the French government agreeing to essentially scrap their managed arms export strategy in order to hawk weapons to the Saudi tyrants directly. Of the three leaders Macron is under the most domestic pressure to halt arms sales to the Saudis because of their appalling human rights record and their war crimes in Yemen, but he ignored public opinion in order to make French arms sales to Saudi Arabia even easier!

And then just one week later France, the United States and the United Kingdom collaborated to launch missile attacks on Syria (including targets that had been declared free of chemical weapons just weeks earlier by the OPCW).

It’s absolutely obvious that the main beneficiaries of these attacks on Syria are the Saudi-backed Islamist terrorists who have been losing the war there. We know they’re Saudi backed because the US government admitted as much in the leaked Hillary Clinton emails.

We also know that Saudi Arabia has produced the second most ISIS fighters (after Tunisia), and that the country is the single biggest source of pro-ISIS propaganda on social media.

Within five weeks of starting his arms deal tour all three of his major arms-dealer nations have decided to bypass their own parliaments in order to militarily support the Saudi destabilisation agenda in Syria.

The truly alarming thing about this scandalous situation isn’t that France, the US and the UK are selling weapons to tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia (they’re three of the five biggest arms dealing nations on earth), nor that they’re actively assisting the Saudis in their strategic destabilisation of their Middle East neighbours (they’ve been happy to watch Saudi Arabia spread Salafi Islamist extremism all over the globe for decades), but that the mainstream press in all three countries simply refuse to explain the Saudi role in all of this.

All three leaders cynically bypassed their parliaments to carry out these attacks. All three leaders defied public opinion to carry out these attacks. And all three leaders are sickeningly close to the vile and repressive Saudi regime whose Islamist proxies in Syria are the main beneficiaries of these attacks.

If mainstream media hacks were even remotely interested in holding the powerful to account then the scandalous involvement of democracy-hating Saudi Arabia in all of this would be a central theme of the Syria airstrikes coverage, but it simply isn’t.

 Another Angry Voice  is a “Pay As You Feel” website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.



OR