Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free!

Media Portrays Brazen Mass Murder as Misunderstood Act of Defiance

Reuters downplays mass murder of innocent civilians while portraying culprits as "hardline rebels" fighting Assad's "tyrannical rule"

This post first appeared on Russia Insider

If you're eager for a nice, clean example of how the media turns the truth on its head, look no further.

Our friends at Reuters have found an ingenious way of portraying mass murderers as misunderstood heroes resisting the "tyrannical" Assad and his devious Iranian allies. 

<figcaption>Good just misunderstood!</figcaption>
Good just misunderstood!

On Saturday, two bomb attacks in Damascus killed at least 70 people, including "43 Iraqi pilgrims who had come to the Syrian capital to visit Shia shrines in the famed Old City. 11 bystanders and eight children were among those killed."

To summarize: This was cowardly mass murder carried out by terrorists. 

Here's how Reuters "framed" the attack, and the terrorist group responsible for it — let's break this frame down, line-by-line:

The group said the attack on Saturday targeted Iranian-backed militias in revenge for what it said was their role in supporting President Bashar al Assad's "tyrannical rule", holding them responsible for "killing and displacing" Syrians.

For some odd reason, Reuters doesn't want to mention that the "group" that claimed responsibility for the attacks, Hayyat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. And while quoting the group's statement justifying the terrorist attack is standard journalistic practice, we now wait in anxious anticipation for Reuters to explain why no one should feel any sympathy for HTS and its act of mass murder:

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British-based war monitor, said most of those killed in the attack were Iraqi Shi'ite Muslim pilgrims who were going to visit a cemetery near the Old City of Damascus. It said at least 20 pro-government fighters also died.

Translation: "Most of the people killed in the attack were innocent pilgrims and bystanders — we don't want to provide exact numbers, because the death toll is appalling — but according to weirdos in the U.K., no less than twenty soldiers were killed. Twenty. Let's focus on that number, and forget about the other victims." 

Nicely played, Reuters. What's next? Some subtle sympathy for the terrorists? You know it:

In the six-year-old Syrian civil war, Assad is fighting against rebels, who are mainly Sunni Muslim, with the support of Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from countries including Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Many rebel groups say Iranian-backed militias are trying to evict Sunnis from around Damascus and other areas that are strategically important in the war.

This deserves a standing ovation. According to Reuters, Al Nusra and its coalition of terrorists are home-grown, organic, born-and-raised Syrians who are fighting foreign militias.

Is this real life? Reuters wants us to believe that these terrorists are a coalition of grassroots activists fighting Assad's "tyranny" and also...Shia gentrification of Damascus?

Reuters saves the best for last:

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was created from a merger of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham - formerly al Qaeda's Nusra Front - and several other groups. The jihadist alliance, which is not linked to Islamic State, includes some of the most hardline rebel elements fighting Assad.

See? They're not even terrorists. They're "hardline rebel elements fighting Assad".

We should all applaud these misunderstood heroes fighting tyranny. Any objections?

Welcome to our upside-down garbage world — made possible by our friends at Reuters. 

Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free!

This post first appeared on Russia Insider

Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons

Our commenting rules: You can say pretty much anything except the F word. If you are abusive, obscene, or a paid troll, we will ban you. Full statement from the Editor, Charles Bausman.