{"id":192743,"date":"2021-08-23T12:00:34","date_gmt":"2021-08-23T11:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=192743"},"modified":"2021-08-24T03:40:06","modified_gmt":"2021-08-24T02:40:06","slug":"afghanistan-and-the-mainstream-media-manipulation-methods","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2021\/08\/afghanistan-and-the-mainstream-media-manipulation-methods\/","title":{"rendered":"Afghanistan and the Mainstream Media Manipulation Methods"},"content":{"rendered":"

Truth, Accuracy in Media: An Analysis<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

When it comes to Western mainstream media\u2019s coverage of international affairs, I would today dare the hypothesis that 10-20% is truthful<\/em>, 20-30% is fake and narratives<\/em> and 50-70% is omitted<\/em> (see definition in point 2 below).<\/p>\n

This is not a scientific statement or hypothesis that I have tested empirically; rather, it is my judgement based on two things: a) witnessing over some forty years the decay of the mainstream media\u2019s international affairs coverage and b) my experiences from conflict zones such as e.g. all parts of former Yugoslavia, Georgia, Iraq before it was occupied, Iran, Syria and China and comparing them with the media images conveyed by the mainstream Western press.<\/p>\n

In TFF\u2019s recent analysis \u201dBehind The Smokescreen. An Analysis of the West\u2019s Destructive China Cold War Agenda And Why It Must Stop\u201d<\/a>, we make use of the following nine Mainstream Media Manipulation Methods, MMMM:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Fake<\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>– lies, deception, inventions or whatever else that cannot be judged\/verified as empirically valid; presentation of institutes and scholars as ‘independent’ and defining publications as based on scholarly research when they are not – are typical examples.<\/li>\n
  2. Omission <\/em><\/strong>– leaving out essential perspectives, facts, analyses, experts\/expertise, literature, counter views, possible alternative hypothesis and explanations of found results. When taken together, the omission is often much more distortive than fake (and less easy for the public to detect).<\/li>\n
  3. Censorship <\/em><\/strong>– meaning a government tells the media (by law or less open and verifiable methods) what the\u00a0limits<\/em>\u00a0are. When a few of the countless millions of\u00a0possible<\/em>\u00a0stories that could be told from around the world are selected for the front-pages, it is also the result of censorship, not only omission.<\/li>\n
  4. Self-censorship <\/em><\/strong>– news bureaus, editors, reports and journalists know the standard operating procedures and stick to them because it is convenient and typically secures that they keep their job. It\u2019s built on a kind of\u00a0group think<\/a>. Censorship and self-censorship define the\u00a0discourse<\/em>\u00a0and its\u00a0framework<\/em>\u00a0and what\u00a0the<\/em>\u00a0truth is, commonly understood\/accepted as part of that local culture and perceived as ‘natural’ – that is, also politically correct.<\/li>\n
  5. Framing <\/em><\/strong>– is a somewhat difficult concept because it can mean many different things. It can mean setting the frames of “what are we talking about here?” It can also be framing as\u00a0orientation and interpretation<\/a> – “In social theory, framing is a kind of interpretation, perhaps a set of anecdotes, historical events and stereotypes that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events.\u201d Media framing<\/em>\u00a0builds on these dimensions but\u00a0adds something specific<\/a>\u00a0– “the parameters of the discussion itself – the words, symbols, overall content, and tone used to frame the topic. When compared to agenda setting, framing includes a broader range of cognitive processes – such as moral evaluations, causal reasoning, appeals to principles, and recommendations for treatment of problems.” Simply put, it’s about how a story is packaged<\/a>.<\/li>\n
  6. Constructed narratives <\/em><\/strong>– stories that more or less substitute for reality and makes reality- and source checks superfluous or even dangerous (for the maintenance of the fake\/omission report). Narratives are often gross simplifications of a complex reality and use everyday ways of thinking that everybody can relate to without much knowledge of the substantive issues. Boiling down a complex conflict to a struggle between bad guyes and good guys is an example.<\/li>\n
  7. Propaganda and other distortions <\/em><\/strong>– let us quote the\u00a0Cambridge Dictionary<\/a>: “information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published or in some other way spread\u00a0with the intention of influencing people’s opinions”<\/em>\u00a0– one example being political\/wartime propaganda.<\/li>\n
  8. Psychological warfare or psychological operations <\/em>(PsyOps)<\/strong> – close, of course, to propaganda but often defined as influencing other people, not our own. However, that is not the case today. Undoubtedly, governments also do PsyOps on their own citizens – such as constantly instilling in them a sense of being threatened by foreign countries, weapons, terrorists – or by Some has called this\u00a0fearology<\/em>\u00a0– governance by instigating fear. People who fear are much more willing to accept controls and limitations and to obey than those who do not fear – as we have seen when it comes to accepting all kinds of measures to combat terrorism and pandemics. PsyOps are\u00a0broader and aim to influence<\/a>\u00a0a target audience’s value system, belief system, emotions, motives, reasoning, or behaviour. It can be used to induce confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviours favourable to the originator’s objectives and are sometimes combined with\u00a0black operations<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0false flag<\/a>\u00a0tactics.<\/li>\n
  9. Cancel culture <\/em><\/strong>– a more recent term – is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrown out of social or professional circles \u2013 whether it be online, on social media, or in person. Those subject to this ostracism have been “cancelled” mostly because of their views or behaviours. The expression “cancel culture” has predominantly negative connotations and is commonly used in free speech and censorship debates. From another perspective, it is a demand\/punishment having to do with someone who is politically (non)correct and\/or challenges the framework of the “Zeitgeist.”<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    These methods are an integral part of today’s Western mainstream media and, thus, political reality. While each has its distinct character, they also overlap and are used in clusters that fit the chosen political agenda.<\/p>\n

    In the above-mentioned report we apply them to the Western mainstream media\u2019s treatment of everything China but it is part and parcel of all <\/em>mainstream global media coverage. In what follows, I shall try to apply some<\/em> of them to the war on Afghanistan in general and the August 15, 2021, Western military withdrawal from Afghanistan in particular – aware that it can only be hints without lots of documentary links. (The numbers below do not indicate priorities).<\/p>\n

    We are\/were told\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

    1\u2026<\/strong> that all this started<\/em> on October 7, 2001.<\/p>\n

    It didn\u2019t. The \u201dit\u201d that started was not the violence but the conflict and that was all about the first Cold War between the US\/NATO and Soviet Union\/Warsaw Pact. Concerning Afghanistan, it began with Operation Cyclone in July 1979, four months before<\/em> the Soviet invasion. It is one of the longest CIA operation having cost more than US$ 20 billion. More here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    2\u2026<\/strong> that the purpose<\/em> of the war and occupation was to fight terrorism which had manifested itself in New York and Washington on \u201d9\/11.<\/p>\n

    That was the pretext;<\/em> however not one Afghan had participated in the terrible terror attack (which wasn\u2019t a war by any definition) and should never have been misused to start the\u00a0 thousandfold more killing Global War on Terror (GWOT)<\/a> still going on with exclusively counter-productive results (see later). George W. Bush refused to deliver documentation<\/a> for the US assertion that 9\/11 was masterminded by Osama bin Laden and, therefore, the Taliban refused to deliver him in exchange for such documentation.<\/p>\n

    3\u2026<\/strong> that the installed government and the Afghan military forces cowardly ran away and there was no purpose in trying to fight for Afghanistan when its own government and military didn\u2019t do it.<\/p>\n

    The simple fact is that the US spent US $ 86 billion on giving Afghanistan the wrong kind of military with which no one would have been able to win in what is fundamentally a rather low-tech guerilla war in a mountaineous environment. (Nothing learned since Vietnam).<\/p>\n

    4\u2026<\/strong> that it wasn\u2019t about nation-building but about eradicating the forces that hit the US on 9\/11 and develop a national defence force to guarantee that Afghanistan would no longer serve as a base for terrorism that could reach the West.<\/p>\n

    On the contrary. It was, at the very least, about some<\/em> nation-building and imposition of Western values. The US has promoted and increased militarism and terrorism worldwide instead of defeating it. In 2000, US State Department had about 400 people dying in global terrorism annually; according to the latest Global Terror Index, the figure today is 16.000, or 40 times<\/em> higher. GWOT must simply be the most stupid war ever fought.<\/p>\n

    5\u2026<\/strong> that improving the lot of Afghan women through e.g. education was a major – noble – motivation for the invasion and occupation.<\/p>\n

    Undoubtedly, over these 20 years of Western presence, millions of Afghan women have been educated and now see more opportunities. However, it is naive beyond the acceptable to believe that such a human rights motivation was central to US\/NATO policies. Additionally, if you improve education – what\u2019s the use if you do not do a lot of other things – which could<\/em> have been done as US economist Jeffrey Sachs states so eloquently in this video?<\/a><\/p>\n

    Had the US done anything wise and good for the Afghan people, the Taliban would not have had a chance to come back. So, it can be argued, the US has fought the Taliban for 20 years only to make its return unavoidable. Had the US\/West\u2019s mission been predominantly civilian, respectful of Afghan culture and really about human rights – the military would have gone home at least 15 years ago and the rest been one huge foreign-assisted development project.<\/p>\n

    And a final observation on this: Western mainstream media\u2019s only reference to George W. Bush – perhaps the largest contemporary non-convicted war criminal – is that the withdrawal was bad because he fears for the future of Afghanistan\u2019s girls and women – one of the more shameful interviews brought by Deutsche Welle here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    We were\/are not<\/em> told\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

    1\u2026<\/strong> that 9\/11 was a pretext<\/em> rather than a cause. Neither what the real story of 9\/11 was. Too much in the official account doesn\u2019t make sense.<\/p>\n

    2\u2026<\/strong> that Afghanistan\u2019s geo-political position and its incredible reservoir of minerals<\/a> was a much stronger motivator for the operation.<\/p>\n

    3\u2026<\/strong> that the US fundamentally saw Afghanistan as a piece in a very large puzzle of the game at the time against the Soviet Union – and, more recently, against China. <\/em>Remember Kissinger and Brzezinski? And the writings of Ahmed Rashid? And the role of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI<\/a> – there isn\u2019t much it has not been involved in\u2026<\/p>\n

    4\u2026<\/strong> that the US has created (the preconditions for) and supported terrorist movements<\/em> where and whenever it saw it fit be it the Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS and, and the Muslim Uyghurs from Xinjiang – 5000 of them operating in Syria fighting with Western-supported terror groups mostly trained, equipped and financed by leading NATO members, Turkey in particular. They organisation, East Turkistan Islamic Movement, ETIM, has its exile government<\/a> in – yes, of course – Washington. Former Afghan president, Hamid Karzai<\/em>, already in 2017 told VOA that ISIS is a tool of the US<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    5\u2026<\/strong> that NATO\u2019s involvement in Afghanistan, as in – say – Yugoslavia, is one huge violation of the letters and spirit of its <\/em>North Atlantic Treaty of 1949<\/a> (and the UN Charter, Article 1 in particular) and that 9\/11 was not a war and, therefore, the Treaty\u2019s paragraph 5 should never have been activated and NATO should never have been in Afghanistan.<\/p>\n

    6\u2026<\/strong> that there were alternatives<\/em> to war on Afghanistan and that it would not take much intelligence to have shaped some kind of presence in and influence on the Afghan society in ways totally different from the militarist approach that would likely have yielded much better results today.<\/p>\n

    7\u2026<\/strong> that the heroin element<\/a> of it all has always been very important – among other reasons to finance CIA\u2019s covert operations in and around Afghanistan.<\/p>\n

    8\u2026<\/strong> that the US has operated in ways that could not but make Afghanistan one of the most corrupt<\/em> places on earth and that the US gave up already in 2011 to do anything about it<\/a>. And corruption here means both economic and in terms of the \u201dpuppet\u201d people (and CIA operatives) it appointed and relied upon, fleeing President Ashraf Ghani only being the latest.<\/p>\n

    9\u2026<\/strong> that if you look at maps of oil and gas pipelines<\/a>, a huge Great Game<\/em> has been played for decades; one of the world\u2019 leading analysts and commentators on this region, Pepe Escobar, has called Afghanistan \u201dPipelinestan\u201d<\/a> for a reason. (Financial Times maps here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

    10\u2026<\/strong> that Afghanistan – and the withdrawal – may have a lot to do with the <\/em>US\u2019 China Cold War Agenda, CCWA<\/a>, and the Biden Administration\u2019s Number 1<\/em> priority to destabilise, contain and demonise China and its Belt & Road Initiative, BRI. More here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    11\u2026<\/strong> that the US has learned nothing from its war fiascos since Vietnam<\/em> and that, as Andy Mack stated it brilliantly as far back as 1975<\/a> that big countries lose small wars or wars in small countries mainly because over time the aggressor loses domestic cohesion and the war itself legitimacy. Afghanistan has always been \u201dthe graveyard of empires\u201d – it may well turn out to be the fate of the US Empire too, but Afghanistan won\u2019t be in the future simply because after the demise of the US Empire, there will be nobody who is mad enough to impose its own system on the rest of the world or try once again a \u201dmission civilisatrice;\u201d<\/p>\n

    12\u2026<\/strong> that every and operation of this type fundamentally rests on racism or white \u201dcultural\u201d superiority<\/em> or as Norwegian philosopher, Harald Ofstad<\/em>, has termed the same – our contempt for weakness quite similar to the values of Nazi-Germany. See his immensely important book, Our Contempt for Weakness<\/a> (1989).<\/p>\n

    13\u2026<\/strong> that the human and other costs<\/em> of the war on Afghanistan and all the Global War On Terror, GWOT, are obscene and absurd and a major reason the United States is in decline and its empire will fall (which will lead to the breakdown of NATO); a very comprehensive\u00a0 – and heart-breaking – documentation is found at the Costs of War Project at Brown University<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    14\u2026<\/strong> that, simply put, to fight terrorism<\/em> by killing terrorists<\/em> is as stupid and morally reprehensible as eradicating diseases by killing the patients; one must understand the much more comprehensive mechanisms by which a human being turns into a terrorist. But that is too sophisticated for an Empire which is\/will be second-to-none only in military power and therefore has only one tool in its toolbox – a hammer.<\/p>\n

    In conclusion, with Afghanistan being yet another predictable fiasco, one must ask questions today such as:<\/p>\n