West Suffers Propaganda on Syria - Bulgarian Expert
Westerners are exposed to one-sided reports about ongoing violent events in Syria, whi favor the rebels, according to Bulgarian Middle East Expert Kiryak Tsonev.
"We are the victims of one-sided propaganda from the so-called rebels. From the other side, the side of the government, information is much more scarce," commented Tsonev for the Bulgarian National Radio Tuesday.
According to the Bulgarian expert, western media and governments are unduly biased to only one of the side in a violent armed conflict.
"At present there is a civil war going on in Syria - army against army. The rebels themselves call their units a Free Army. So demands for ceasefire on both sides are completely justified," added Tsonev.
According to him, there are no grounds for an ideological favorization of Sunni Muslims that he sees as prevalent on the part of the West.
"We must not forget that the Taliban were Sunni too," clarified Tsonev.
The vast majority of Syria's population is Sunni, while it is ruled by the Shiite Al-Assad family, which has been in power since 1971, when the father of current President Bashar Al-Assad, Hafez Al-Assad, became president.
Syria has been grappled by pro-democracy protests since March 2011, which have of late turned extremely violent, claiming the lives of thousands.
Sa-sha, please read what I wrote, I acknowledged that the BBC along with others were not perfect and made mistakes but that, overall it offered fair reporting and gave the opposite viewpoint as well, if that viewpoint was on offer (which it is not always so). I agree "invasion" was an unfortunate word, however, as you state, it actually said "it is not yet an invasion". I think that, if you were to hold a poll around the world, you would find that most trusted the BBC and that they have a reputation earned over many decades for fair reporting.
...as for today's BBC: less and less trustworthy, more and more
BBC reporter, as it appears on BBC news website [January,2012]:
"We're hearing a report this morning from an eyewitness saying the government troops have been moving up to the outskirts of this part of Homs...They haven't yet gone through the first rebel checkpoint. It is not yet an invasion, but that is what people fear over the next day or so." [Btw, people feared just those 'rebels']
So, BBC refers to Syrian soldiers seeking restore order in Homs against armed bandits as "an invasion".....Yeah, BBC refers to SYRIAN soldiers entering a SYRIAN city as "INVASION". Get your head around that one.
Thanks for that one Sa-Sha but it doesn't really address the article on the "western" media. Let me explain about the BBC and it's impartiality. Only last night while watching UK TV I saw an article on Bahrain and the new troubles there, there was reporting of the Governments response and also a discussion between a protesters relative in London and a Government supporter, quite impartial.
This morning I am watching news on BBC world service on what the anti-old government protesters (now in power) are doing in the way of torture and summery executions, not what you would expect from the "western" media who (supposedly) supported the old rebels. The BBC reports what is there to report (also good in UK channel 4 news) if that is sometimes unbalanced it is only because one side is not putting info in front of the media, it is also standard practise to state where they (the media) are unable to confirm themselves whether film or reports are authentic.
I have a young Bulgarian friend who tells be that one of her Fathers Sat evening pastimes, along with other relatives and friends was to gather round a radio and listen to the BBC news, obviously they found (under the communist regime) that the BBC was giving a fair and balanced view of world events, something they obvioulsy were not getting from their own national news broadcasters.
Now, I do not claim that the UK is perfect, far from it, and its news broadcasters are only human but there are systems and checks in place that try to ensure a balanced view, and recourse is there for anyone who disagrees and can prove any prejudice. There are people all over the world, under repressive regimes who tune into such stations of the BBC because they know they can trust the broadcaster who time after time after time have proved their honesty in reporting.
Brits to RT: http://rt.com/news/arab-league-west-syria-213/
NATO vs Syria: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/nato-vs-syria/
I watch several channels but mainly BBC world news, on there I get "illegal" footage of what is happening that, I am warned, cannot be verified (Assad's regime wont allow in foreign jounalists and doesn't put out much themselves). I get interviews with protesters and, whenever they decide to put it out (not often) I also get the views of the Assad government and any footage they put out. That is as balanced as it gets at the moment because the Assad government seems not to realise the rest of the world is watching and want to hear their side. Big difference to Libya where they allowed in journalists (although they were not free to roam at will) and put out long statements nearly everyday via their media man and we saw all they had to say, again we got as good a balance as was possible. I also watch RT, France 24, aljazera and sometimes (but not often) CNN and, on all, the reporting appears to be much the same. All this leads me to believe that it is the Assad regime that is not getting a balanced view.