"Progressive" Journalism's Legacy of Deceit

Global Research
Prof. James F. Tracy

Progressive-left media persist in acting as propaganda outlets for the US-NATO destabilization of Syria, thus placating a politically conscious audience that might otherwise be mobilized against acts of imperialism and violence. The historical record suggests how this is not the first time "Progressive publicists" were used to sell a war.

A recent report in the UK Guardian by Charlie Skelton explains that Western news outlets remain willing victims (or accomplices) in a propaganda campaign for US -NATO led Syrian intervention being carried out by skilled and well-financed public relations practitioners. According to Skelton, “the spokespeople, the ‘experts on Syria’, the ‘democracy activists’ … The people who ‘urge’ and ‘warn’ and ‘call for action’" against the Assad regime are themselves part of a sophisticated and well-heeled public relations effort to allow NATO forces to give Syria the same medicine administered to Libya in 2011. “They're selling the idea of military intervention and regime change,” Skelton reports,

“and the mainstream news is hungry to buy. Many of the "activists" and spokespeople representing the Syrian opposition are closely (and in many cases financially) interlinked with the US and London – the very people who would be doing the intervening. Which means information and statistics from these sources isn't necessarily pure news – it's a sales pitch, a PR campaign.”[1]

If one thinks that a revelation of this magnitude would be cause for other major Western news media to reassess their reportage of the Syrian situation they would be greatly mistaken. Amy Goodman's Democracy Now is a case in point. Since the beginning of the “Arab Spring” color revolutions the foremost broadcast venue of “independent” progressive-Left journalism in the United States has used its reportage to obfuscate and thereby advance the campaign for regime change in Egypt, Libya, and now Syria. The tactics of disinformation and death squads employed in Libya and Syria should be easily recognizable since they were refined against popular Central American moves toward popular enfranchisement by the Reagan administration during the 1980s.

As Finian Cunningham recently observed [2] Democracy Now’s adherents look to Goodman on a regular basis because of her perceived credibility; she is the self-avowed “ exception to the rulers”—a tireless crusader against the restrictive corporate media where there remains a “deafening silence … around the issues—and people—that matter most.”[3] Today Goodman’s vaunted program is contributing to the very violence being committed by Western-backed mercenaries against the Syrian people.

Goodman and similar Left media are engaging and convincing precisely because of their posturing against corporate media control, economic exploitation and war mongering. Occupying the outer contours of National Public Radio's milquetoast programming, Democracy Now’s self-described “independent” reportage takes on a certain aura of authenticity among its supporters—mainly progressives with concerns for social justice and human rights.

Such characteristics make Goodman and Democracy Now among the most effective sowers of disinformation. Further, their role in assuaging an educated and otherwise outspoken audience serves only to aid and abet the wanton military aggression Goodman and her cohorts claim to decry. In light of the program’s broader coverage of the “Arab Spring,” such reporting must be recognized and condemned as sheer public relations for NATO and the Obama administration’s campaign of perpetual terrorism and war on humanitarian grounds.[4]

On July 19, shortly after interviewing a mysterious “Syrian activist” who allegedly participated only with the assurance of anonymity, Democracy Now brought on McClatchy’s Beirut correspondent David Enders, who presented the US-NATO-backed mercenary army’s actions that resulted in the deaths of high-level Syrian government officials as part of a spontaneous popular revolution that was gaining momentum.

“We’ve seen the rebellion grow in numbers and as far as its organizational capability. And they’ve attempted to strike at Assad and his inner circle multiple times … I think what we’re seeing is just the government crumbling under the weight of a massive rebellion. It simply can’t put it down.”[5]

Goodman and Democracy Now are in fact upholding progressive journalism's greatest perversion: consciously using the public's faith in its performance and moral rectitude to promote the latest war—a tradition that dates back almost one hundred years. At that time journalists with public personae remarkably similar to Goodman’s were employed to persuade the American public on US entry into World War One. This was done with the government's careful consideration of how ostensibly liberal crusaders were held in high regard by the broader public.

From Britain: RIBA, AIA and Aaronovitch Attack Gage, Fail to Refute His Findings

Notice the similar, frumpy, hackneyed tactics by those professionals protecting the official story of 9/11.   No attempt to address or dispute the evidence presented by architect Richard Gage, but instead an immediate accusation of being "anti-semitic".  The lady doth protest too much.  Who instructed the British RIBA and other trade groups to use the tactic of slandering and libeling Richard Gage, AIA instead of using their expertise to refute Gage's findings?

This is a clear indication that they cannot refute Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, regardless of any spin to come out of the so-called debunkers,  Honest assessments by outside observers indicate that Gage has scored a substantial victory for the 9/11 Truth movement.

Here is a great example by 9/11 Truth advocate and artist, Scootle Royal (Wake Up American Slobs).

Scootle Royale
Debunking the Debunkers

It seems the heads of the Britain and America's top architectural organizations are annoyed that Gage got to talk at the Royal Institute of British Architects, accusing him of using RIBA's name to give credibility to a 'bonkers' conspiracy theory. The Randi-crowd are of course using this fact to argue that Gage is crazy.

I live in Wiltshire, which is a four hour, sixty pound train journey via multiple changes and a tube ride away from Cambridge, but only 45 minutes away from Bristol. So while I couldn't attend Gage's talk at Cambridge University last saturday, I was able to see him in Bristol on tuesday. I had intended to stick around meet him afterwards but the Q&A dragged on too long and I didn't want to miss the last train home so I had to leave early. Anyway, I can assure you there was no 'conspiracy theory' in his presentation. In fact he's even taken out Larry Silverstein's 'pull it' comment. When asked about this in the Q&A he said he took it out because he was fed up with arguing with people over what 'pull it' meant, prefering instead to stick to the science.

Now assuming the presentation I saw was the same as the one given to RIBA in London, I know David Aaronovitch is talking crap when he says "What they mean is that George Bush and the Zionists brought down the towers. The RIBA let itself out to a conspiracy theory organisation whose theories are utterly insane."

The only theory that is utterly insane is NIST's thermal expansion theory. At one point in the presentation I saw, after outlining the thermal expansion theory, Gage said something like "There are so many things wrong with this, but for the sake of time I will only list twelve!" and then went on a rapid fire tirade simply on why the idea of heated floor beams remaining rigid, breaking numerous bolts and studs in unison and pushing against a girder, instead of just sagging, is ludicrous. If Aaronovitch, who attended the RIBA lecture, accepts the official story of 9/11, then that is what he endorses!