So let's talk about 'fake news'.
Thrust of argument: An example I recently found of something you can accurately call 'fake news' is Rowena Mason's absurd claim about something an MP said, but there are so many different examples and some are 'more subtle' than others. (See also: "Rowena Mason (Guardian journalist) is a marketing and advertising copy writer, in terms of what she really does, not a journalist, in any traditional sense of the word").
Direction of resistance / implied resistance: So for an example of the less glaring type of fake news narrative, consider that on the topic of fake news writer George Monbiot, actual journalist (proving his points with evidence) Jonathan Cook writes: 'Investigative journalist Gareth Porter has published two exclusives whose import is far greater than may be immediately apparent. They concern Israel's bombing in 2007 of a supposed nuclear plant secretly built, according to a self-serving US and Israeli narrative, by Syrian leader Bashar Assad.
Although the attack on the "nuclear reactor" occurred a decade ago, there are pressing lessons to be learnt for those analysing current events in Syria.
Porter's research indicates very strongly that the building that was bombed could not have been a nuclear reactor - and that was clear to experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) even as the story was being promoted uncritically across the western media'.
Read about a low-risk "end of day" trading method designed for long and stable periods of economic activity.
Removal of resistance: Cook points out that George Monbiot is a kind of 'witchfinder general' when it comes to false portrayals of those his (and Mason's) corporate masters want to smear: 'The relevance of the nuclear reactor deception can be understood in relation to the latest efforts by Guardian columnist George Monbiot (and many others) to discredit prominent figures on the left, including Noam Chomsky and John Pilger, for their caution in making assessments of much more recent events in Syria. Monbiot has attacked them for not joining him in simply assuming that Assad was responsible for a sarin gas attack last April on Khan Sheikhoun, an al-Qaeda stronghold in Idlib province.
Understandably, many on the left have been instinctively wary of rushing to judgment about individual incidents in the Syrian war, and the narratives presented in the western media. The claim that Assad's government used chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun, and earlier in Ghouta, was an obvious boon to those who have spent more than a decade trying to achieve regime change in Syria.
In what has become an ugly habit with Monbiot, and one I have noted before, he has enthusiastically adopted the role of Witchfinder General. Any questioning of evidence, scepticism or simply signs of open-mindedness are enough apparently to justify accusations that one is an Assadist or conspiracy theorist. Giving house room to the doubts of a ballistics expert like Ted Postol of MIT, or an experienced international arms expert like Scott Ritter, or a famous investigative journalist like Seymour Hersh, or a former CIA analyst like Ray McGovern, is apparently proof that one is an atrocity denier or worse.'
Unification: Cook informs us: 'There are reasons to think that Monbiot is seriously misrepresenting the strength of the OPCW's findings, as several commentators have observed. Most notably, Robert Parry, another leading investigative journalist, points out that evidence in the report's annex - the place where inconvenient facts are often buried - appears to blow a large hole in the official story.
Parry notes that the time recorded by the UN of the photo of the chemical weapons attack is more than half an hour *after* some 100 victims had already been admitted to five different hospitals, some of them lengthy drives from the alleged impact site.
But potentially more significant than such troubling inconsistencies are the conclusions of Gareth Porter's separate investigation into Israel's bombing of the non-existent Syrian nuclear reactor. That gets to the heart of where Monbiot and many others have gone badly wrong in their certainty about events in Syria.'
Read the rest via the link in the references below, should you want to take a more honest approach to informing yourself of what's going on.
People like Mason (quite blatantly) can repeatedly be found misleading the public and reporting not on facts but as a direct result of an agenda, ultimately, as has been proved time and time again, at the expense of factuality itself.
As I wrote before: Britain and other western nations set to repeat catastrophe of Blair and Bush era and suffer all the same consequences again.
The following extract from an article by Jonathan Cook ought to inform the less deluded, less self-adulating 'westerner' of the deception our media and governments are once again engaged in having failed to learn the lesson from what happened when Campbell and Blair 'sexed up' documents to claim to the British people that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and could attack us within '45 minutes' - lies which eventually were outed, at the cost of the life of David Kelly, and as admitted in the Chilcot report many years and millions of corpses later:
"This was not a chemical weapons strike," a senior adviser to the US intelligence community told Hersh. "That's a fairy tale. If so, everyone involved in transferring, loading and arming the weapon .. would be wearing Hazmat protective clothing in case of a leak. There would be very little chance of survival without such gear."
According to US intelligence, Hersh reports, the Syrian air force was able to target the site using a large, conventional bomb supplied by the Russians. But if Assad did not use a chemical warhead, why did many people apparently die at Khan Sheikhoun from inhalation of toxic gas?
The US intelligence community, says Hersh, believes the bomb triggered secondary explosions in a storage depot in the building's basement that included propane gas, fertilisers, insecticides as well as "rockets, weapons and ammunition, .. [and] chlorine-based decontaminants for cleansing the bodies of the dead before burial". These explosions created a toxic cloud that was trapped close to the ground by the dense early morning air.
Médecins Sans Frontières found patients it treated "smelled of bleach, suggesting that they had been exposed to chlorine." Sarin is odourless.
Hersh concludes that the "evidence suggested that there was more than one chemical responsible for the symptoms observed, which would not have been the case if the Syrian Air Force - as opposition activists insisted - had dropped a sarin bomb, which has no percussive or ignition power to trigger secondary explosions. The range of symptoms is, however, consistent with the release of a mixture of chemicals, including chlorine and the organophosphates used in many fertilizers, which can cause neurotoxic effects similar to those of sarin."
Demonising Arab leaders using complete lies has an additional result to merely enabling us to illegally invade countries and cause untold damage and anger so many people that 'terrorism' is 100% guaranteed on our soil as an outcome.
Indeed - demonising Arab leaders and portraying them as worthy of being killed also aids and abets the general narrative among racist members of western society that easterners are somehow less rational or trustworthy than westerners.
People like Bush, Cheney, Trump, Blair, Thatcher, Nixon, Cameron, May, Johnson etc demonstrate themselves to be sick in the head - the Tory government is now in bed with the DUP which claims that being against gay marriage and supporting the 'case' for businesses being allowed to not allow gay people on their premises are 'not homophobic' ideals.
We have people like that running our society but we point at other people's leaders, call them evil and bomb their soldiers and call for their removal.
Cook concludes as follows: "So let us set aside for a moment the specifics of what happened on April 4 and concentrate instead on what Hersh's critics must concede if they are to argue that Assad used sarin gas against the people of Khan Sheikhoun.
1. That Assad is so crazed and self-destructive - or at the very least so totally incapable of controlling his senior commanders, who must themselves be crazed and self-destructive - that he has on several occasions ordered the use of chemical weapons against civilians. And he has chosen to do it at the worst possible moments for his own and his regime's survival, and when such attacks were entirely unnecessary.
2. That Putin is equally deranged and so willing to risk an end-of-times conflagration with the US that he has on more than one occasion either sanctioned or turned a blind eye to the use of sarin by Assad's regime. And he has done nothing to penalise Assad afterwards, when things went wrong.
3. That Hersh has decided to jettison all the investigatory skills he has amassed over many decades as a journalist to accept at face value any unsubstantiated rumours his long-established contacts in the security services have thrown his way. And he has done so without regard to the damage that will do to his reputation and his journalistic legacy.
4. That a significant number of US intelligence officials, those Hersh has known and worked with over a long period of time, have decided recently to spin an elaborate web of lies no one wants to print, either in the hope of damaging Hersh in some collective act of revenge against him, or in the hope of permanently discrediting their own intelligence services.
Hersh's critics do not simply have to believe one of these four points. They must maintain the absolute veracity of all four of them."
Just as our recent illegal immoral invasion of the middle east under Blair and Bush led arguably to the collapse of our economy and the total subjugation of our working classes, to the rise of 'terrorism' in the form of people from the places where we are responsible for the deaths of millions seeking 'revenge' against us for killing people and destroying the fabric of society, the resultant continued surge in Stalin-era and Hitler-era 'internal' security and surveillance of British and American people and above all ever rising contempt for us and our kids and our culture on the part of most of the rest of the living planet, so too will a repeat of the invasion of Iraq, this time an invasion of Syria which the US has been desperate to carry out for a while, for its own self-gain, cause all the same problems but at an even worse level - far more of it - more poverty, more economic collapse, more terrorism, more environmental disaster - everything. Are British people so weak and lost that they will not prevent May doing exactly what Blair did?