Of course Goldman Sachs would say that.
They're in the money making business not the people curing business. If it were up to banks, pharmaceuticals and insurances we'd be paying a premium for meds and health care. Also, patents would never expire.

GooberTheHat wrote:

Max Blumenthal is also biased against the White Helmets, he has a long standing distrust of them. Which he talks about in this article.

http://eng.kurdistan-insider.com/truth-about-syrian-white-helmets/

But the SOHR, which I think have been given the benifit of doubt here, don't seem to have a bad word to say about them as far as I could tell.

Wow. A bunch or really poor posts but this one I decided to quote. Welcome to the fake news age, folks. Now someone who questions a new institution is "biased against" that institution.

The white helmets are dodgy af. You have to question that institution. What's your analytical tool, if anyone has.criticised the white helmets, that's it, they can't be taken seriously? What planet are you on? They were founded by a British military contractor,, they are trained in Turkey, one of the belligerents. They are funded by anto-Syrian forces. They only work with islamists. They're often the primary source for western news reporting. But to write about them is to be a crazy? You're biased against them.and that means you no one has to listen to anything you say?

Fucking hell, man! That's something else.

Anyway, quick points.. I was mainly looking to Pat Coburn's insights. Another veteran reporter who does shit like go there. And his point wasn't that there was no coverage of Afrin, it's frankly embarrassing that you think a piccie of Google search is relevant to this kind of point.



Blumenthal writes for RT. We'll so do a tonne of left wing people who cannot get a voice elsewhere. Does that mean they're biased now? Mind the distinction between RT editorially and a contributor to the website./ Guest.

The Syrian refugee thingy run by one man out of Coventry has its limitations. And the podcast you seem so eager to rubbish does cover what it has done well, especially on Afrin.

I think by your last few posts you have really shown you aren't interested in truth or honest enquiry. You seem to only want to see one side of the story. It's pretty disappointing, I think you have become part of the information wars rather than stand above it.

Anyway, the podcast, about which Goobs in six posts says nothing at all, is a must listen. It doesn't discuss the white helmets. It discusses how this war is nuts and how the western news coverage is embarrassing and led by deliberate intelligence/ foreign policy rather than facts on the ground or even basic criticism

It shows:

- how it was clear Assad wasn't going to lose the minute it became clear the moderate rebels were not going to. Be the opposition.

- how most coverage is not based from Syria, relies on biased sources and doesn't issue a disclaimer.

And a bunch of similar things. Definitely a must-listen.

That podcast is brilliant

equinox_code wrote:

That podcast is brilliant

By far the most astute point made by Coburn is the emerging journalistic "double bind". We don't have eyes on the ground, because it's dangerous. It's dangerous because in the rebel controlled regions, your trad western journalist is at risk of abduction and murder. By rebels. So how do we report on what's happening in rebel controlled regions? We rely on partisan parties. We call them NGOs. They have Comms equipment supplies by the West. What they say gets reported as fact.

The double bind is that this is an incentive on the rebels to deter journalistic checks. The fact that Al nusra or Isis will kill western journalists is good for any anti-Assad rebel. Whereas there used to be an incentive to open up to journalists to get your message out, this dynamic produces the reverse (and perverse) result that a hostile climate for journalists is a win for the rebels,, because they control the message of the western press it is a terrible precedent to set.

In a way it is a new form of the evil of "embedding" journalists. Same downsides, no upside (at the very least an embedded journalist will know some of the truth).

If you think about it, it is some real catch 22 shit. "X is a fact, it's in the press, it's in an OPCW, it's in a HRW report". "But they didn't go there, they got their information from biased anti Assad sources (Syrian American medical thingy, white helmets, etc)". "They can't go there because it's too dangerous. They have to use the information available". "But this journalist did go there, and he/she says Y is the case, not X". "They were only there because the Assad regime let them go there, it's not reliable".

I mean, we got this in this thread. Fisk's account is not reliable, because he was there ergo Plato he is unreliable. Other reports are reliable precisely because they aren't there. It's actually insane.

I had a dream last night where I, for some unknown reason, had pitched a multi-part documentary about the situation in Syria to a TV company, had them accept it, then started worrying as I had no idea what I was going to say in it.

I blame this thread.

Assad place?

Blimey... Prince Billy's missus' is just casually knockin' em aht' naw', innit?

Anyone else having that many kids while claiming money from the taxpayer would end up on the front page of The Sun, or the Mail...

You ok, @yossarian? Bringing trouble with ya?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43873804

Three is the magic number

I like the way I'm not allowed to slightly question the motives or impartiality of a guy who consistently promotes pro-kremlin talking points, who questions the impartiality of almost the entire mainstream media in a podcast where he tries to promote pro-kremlin talking points.

What is wrong with you? Who's not allowing you to do stuff? I had a go at your posts, I didn't realise you were doing snap takes. I'm still the same man who was so mesmerized by you a gypsy stole my wallet from right under my nose. I still love ya xoxoxoxoxo

I just think your bullshit meter needs adjusting

I did a bit this am, but generally I've been quite good itt.

I've noticed some people really take everything I say as a personal attack, even when it is not directed at them. You and LivDiv, I've noticed that.

It's not a personal attack. I was frustrated by what I read, esp about white helmets and the listing news results for Afrin. Anyway I apologise.

And thanks for the apology, love you to.

Absolutely, and I didn't disagree with that part of the podcast at all.

acemuzzy wrote:

You ok, @yossarian? Bringing trouble with ya?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43873804

Yep, all good. Am in Niagara looking at falls.