3 different verifiable
trusted sources, if you don't have them don't air the story; if you have to air
the story with less than 3 different verifiable trusted sources just make sure
you mention it in the disclaimer at the beginning and at the end. Sounds familiar?
That was the old days of professional journalism, not any more.
A shaky mobile video with
low camera resolution, some sound effects, and lots of movements, by a
'somebody', could be a 'citizen journalist', an 'eye witness', an 'activist',
just 'anybody' as far as it serves the purpose; this is the replacement of journalism
today.
Reliable and well
established news houses would refer to the first option above to preserve their
professionalism and their credibility, but the price sometimes is much more
worth than credibility, if you don't add drama and action to your stories,
people would shift to where they can find it, people want to see blood,
atrocities, crimes, the highest watched are the most violence, some very few
would still want to hear good news.
To add some spices to
your news, bring on 'analysts' to discuss from their point of experience what's
really happening to the audience who are too lazy to work their brains to
analyse themselves and would prefer a fast meal of junk news, then ask to
recruit some people of public desire like celebrities, clerics even fortune
tellers so your story gets more attention and more talks, who cares whether
it's true or not? People want action and fiction so just give them what they
want.
First, I'll advise you to
take a look at how journalism is supposed to be based on by reading the Society
of Professional Journalists: Code of Ethics. Then when you are ready, come back here and
check the following example.
The following is just one
example out of tens of thousands that are polluting our environment with
propaganda in a systematic way just to serve the same parties, those who ignite
strife amongst 'rogue nations' citizens, then cry because of the bloodshed, then
interfere to stop the bloodshed by shedding much more blood than would ever
occur by its own, then crying again to get the rebuilding contracts.
He tweets: "#Syria
Statistics 383 Days: Killed:12,460 Children:882 Females:773 Soldiers:1,089
Missing:+65,000 Tortured to death:491 Arrested:+212,000" and he's
literally nobody, but has 4,826 followers as of now, and this 'tweet' gets 50+
retweets (Twitter doesn't count beyond 50 retweets, this figure could be
hundreds) then this is followed by another tweet: "The source of
the Syrian casualty/ arrest stat is an independent Swedish journalist SyrienNyheter"
Then someone smarter would ask: "and what
are his sources? i mean, is that independent journo in Sweden or
Syria?"
Reply: "He's done
the count himself. He's been covering it since beginning."!
And who is this super
journalist that can count by himself: "12,460 killed out of which he was
able to identify 882 children and 773 females (I assume adult females), 1,089
Soldiers (killed by who?), he also counted over +65,000 missing, 491 tortured
to death and over 212,000 arrested"? Let's assume he did all this counting
in 383 days, where is he doing the counting and who is this super independent
Swedish journalist?
He's anonymous, and if an independent Swedish journalist
being an anonymous is not credible enough, from where is he sourcing his
information and statistics? Don't guess much, he stated it on his own profile,
it's from Bassam Al Baghdadi, an Iraqi writer living in Stockholm,
Sweden and counting the Syrian casualties!
If you find the above not stupid enough to base your news thus
judgement on, take a look at the following image:
 |
| It's a Top Tweet by a guy sitting in Kabul, Afghanistan! |
A nobody sitting in his
tent in Kabul, Afghanistan with let me assume, some NATO technology to stay
connected from there, reporting news about Syria, basing his reports on an
'independent Swedish journalist' who happens to be another nobody sitting in
Stockholm, Sweden who did the counting of casualties himself by sourcing his
information from an Iraqi writer living in Stockholm, Sweden! There you have
your 3 credible sources. Go ahead and shoot it at the public.
Wait, before you leave,
you need to make it public attracting, and you need a celebrity. There's plenty
of them, here's one:
I'm sure Mia Farrow is
not involved out of her sudden love to the Syrian people, otherwise she would
have done something to stop the unilateral sanctions imposed on the Syrian
people by the same powers crying for the Syrian people.
There is killing in
Syria, there is a crisis there, but the questions everybody should ask are: Who
is doing the killing? Who are the victims? How can over 3,000 soldiers be
killed and by who? Surely not by some chants of 'peaceful protesters'. Who did
the many suicide bombings Al Qaeda style in Aleppo and Damascus? Who benefits
from the killings in Syria? Should we accept that NATO destroys Syria like they
did in Libya, devastate the country, kill tens of thousands of Syrians like
they killed over 120,000 Libyans (Libya's population is 9.6 million or was
living on over 1.75 million square kilometres comparing with 24 million
Syrians living on 185,000 sq. kms) to come one year later and say: "No Evidence That Gaddafi Fired On His
Own People"
Or like the Iraqi case
still looking for those Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction that caused the
deaths of over a 1 million Iraqi, displacement of 4 million internally and
across the borders, and sending the country to pre-Stone age.
As I say always: They
fool you, they keep fooling you and they enjoy fooling you, not because they're
smart, it's just because you are 'Foolable'.
 |
| We Warned You |
