{"id":98718,"date":"2017-09-18T12:00:22","date_gmt":"2017-09-18T11:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=98718"},"modified":"2017-09-16T20:26:01","modified_gmt":"2017-09-16T19:26:01","slug":"preferred-conclusions-the-bbc-syria-and-venezuela","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2017\/09\/preferred-conclusions-the-bbc-syria-and-venezuela\/","title":{"rendered":"Preferred Conclusions: The BBC, Syria and Venezuela"},"content":{"rendered":"

13 Sep 2017 – <\/em>As the late media activist Danny Schechter wrote<\/a>, when it comes to the corporate broadcast media: \u2018The more you watch, the less you know.\u2019<\/p>\n

Schechter\u2019s observation only fails in one key respect: \u2018mainstream\u2019 output does<\/em> tell us a lot about which foreign governments are being lined up for regime change.<\/p>\n

In 2013, it was remarkable to see<\/a> the BBC reporting claims from Syria on a daily basis in a way that almost always blamed the Syrian government, and President Assad personally, for horrendous war crimes. But as the New York Times<\/em> reported<\/a> last month, the picture was rather less black and white. The US was embroiled in a dirty war that was \u2018one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the C.I.A\u2019, running to \u2018more than $1 billion over the life of the program\u2019. Its aim was to support a vast \u2018rebel\u2019 army created and armed by the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to overthrow the Syrian government.<\/p>\n

The BBC\u2019s relentless headline stories were mostly supplied by \u2018activists\u2019 and \u2018rebels\u2019 who, in fact, were militants attempting to overthrow Assad, and whose claims could not be verified. Veteran Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn described<\/a> the problem afflicting virtually all \u2018mainstream\u2019 reporting on Syria:<\/p>\n

All wars always produce phony atrocity stories \u2013 along with real atrocities. But in the Syrian case fabricated news and one-sided reporting have taken over the news agenda to a degree probably not seen since the First World War\u2026 The real reason that reporting of the Syrian conflict has been so inadequate is that Western news organisations have almost entirely outsourced their coverage to the rebel side.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There was a simple reason why \u2018rebel\u2019 claims were uncontested: they originated from \u2018areas controlled by people so dangerous no foreign journalist dare set foot among them\u2019. The additional point being that \u2018it has never been plausible that unaffiliated local citizens would be allowed to report freely\u2019.<\/p>\n

This was obvious to everyone, doubtless including the BBC, which nevertheless produced a tsunami of \u2018rebel\u2019-sourced propaganda. Crucially, these stories were not balanced attempts to explore the various claims; they sought to establish a version of events justifying regime change: \u2018rebels\u2019 and \u2018activists\u2019 were \u2018good\u2019, Assad was \u2018bad\u2019 and had to go. Journalist Robert Parry explains<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The job of the media is not to provide as much meaningful information as possible to the people so they can exercise their free judgment; it is to package certain information in a way to guide the people to a preferred conclusion.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The BBC campaign was clearly inspired \u2013 whether consciously or otherwise \u2013 by a high-level decision to engineer regime change in Syria.<\/p>\n

The key moment arrived in August 2013 when the US came very close to launching a major attack against Syrian government forces, supposedly in response to Assad\u2019s alleged use of chemical weapons in Ghouta<\/a>, Damascus. Only the UK parliament\u2019s rejection of the case for war and warnings from US generals on doubts about the claims, and likely fallout from regime change, prevented Obama from attacking.<\/p>\n

Particularly disturbing was the fact that, as the possibility of a direct US regime change effort faded, so too did the steady flow of BBC atrocity claims. It was as if, with the goal temporarily unattainable, the propaganda tap was simply closed. It was later re-opened ahead of an anticipated, pro-war Clinton presidency, and then as part of an attempt to push president-elect Trump to intensify the Syrian war.<\/p>\n

\u2018Well, Shock, Shock, It\u2019s The Oil!<\/strong>\u2018<\/p>\n

This year, we have witnessed a comparable BBC propaganda blitz on Venezuela centred around opposition claims<\/a> that President Maduro has \u2018eroded Venezuela\u2019s democratic institutions and mismanaged its economy\u2019.<\/p>\n

The BBC campaign has again been characterised by daily reports from Venezuela presenting a black and white picture of the crisis: Maduro \u2018bad\u2019, opposition \u2018good\u2019. The BBC has again promoted the sense of an escalating crisis that will inevitably and justifiably result in regime change. It is no surprise, then, to learn<\/a> from the Independent<\/em>:<\/p>\n

The head of the CIA has suggested the agency is working to change the elected government of Venezuela and is collaborating with two countries in the region to do so.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

CIA director Mike Pompeo said he was \u2018hopeful that there can be a transition in Venezuela and we the CIA is doing its best to understand the dynamic there\u2019.<\/p>\n

No eyebrows were raised in a US political culture obsessed with unproven claims of Russian interference in last year\u2019s US presidential elections. Last month, Pompeo\u2019s boss, President Trump, commented<\/a> on Venezuela:<\/p>\n

We don\u2019t talk about it but a military option, a military option is certainly something that we could pursue.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Pompeo\u2019s and Trump\u2019s statements indicate a continuation of US policy that supported<\/a> a 2002 coup that temporarily overthrew (then) President Chavez and which \u2018was closely tied to senior officials in the US government\u2019.<\/p>\n

Political analyst Ricardo Vaz notes<\/a> the ironic fact that \u2018many of the opposition leaders\u2019 denouncing Maduro\u2019s alleged attacks on democracy, including Henrique Capriles, Julio Borges, Leopoldo L\u00f3pez and Maria Corina Machado, \u2018were directly involved in the 2002 coup attempt\u2019.<\/p>\n

US interest in Venezuela was explained<\/a> with admirable candour in a classified US government document from December 12, 1978:<\/p>\n

\u2018OUR FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS IN VENEZUELA ARE:<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    THAT VENEZUELA CONTINUE TO SUPPLY A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF OUR PETROLEUM IMPORTS AND CONTINUE TO FOLLOW A MODERATE AND RESPONSIBLE OIL PRICE POSITION IN OPEC\u2026\u2019<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    According to the respected BP \u2018Statistical review of world energy\u2019 (June 28, 2015), proven oil reserves<\/a> in Venezuela are the largest in the world, totalling 297 billion barrels.<\/p>\n

    The US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, naturally shares Trump\u2019s and Pompeo\u2019s view of the country, commenting<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    We are evaluating all of our policy options as to what can we do to create a change of conditions where either Maduro decides he doesn\u2019t have a future and wants to leave of his own accord or we can return the government processes back to their constitution. (Our emphasis)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The fact that Tillerson was chairman and chief executive officer of the world\u2019s largest oil company, ExxonMobil, from 2006-2016, having joined the company in 1975, might give cause for pause in considering the \u2018change of conditions\u2019 he has in mind. In 2007, the Evening Standard<\/em> reported:<\/p>\n

    BP and the other majors are taking a hard line with Chavez, demanding conditions and compensation for [Venezuelan policy changes]\u2026 Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson said that unless the negotiations produce a profitable proposal, \u201cwe won\u2019t be staying\u201d.\u20191<\/a><\/sup><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    And, of course, Trump has left us in no doubt<\/a> about who is the rightful owner of the world\u2019s oil:<\/p>\n

    I wasn\u2019t a fan of Iraq, I didn\u2019t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you \u2013 when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said, in addition to that: \u201cKeep the oil!\u201d\u2026 So we shoulda kept the oil. But okay, maybe we\u2019ll have another chance\u2026 But the fact is: we shoulda kept the oil.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Our search of the Lexis database (August 30, 2017) for UK national press articles mentioning \u2018Tillerson\u2019, \u2018Exxon\u2019 and \u2018Venezuela\u2019 over the seven months since Tillerson was made Secretary of State generated precisely three hits. None of these discussed oil as a possible motive driving US policy \u2013 a taboo subject.<\/p>\n

    Investigative journalist Greg Palast describes<\/a> why and when Venezuela became an Official Enemy of the West:<\/p>\n

    Well, shock, shock, <\/em>it\u2019s the oil! Chavez, back in 2000, 2001, decided that he wasn\u2019t going to give it away anymore\u2026 Big US oil companies were paying a royalty for Venezuela\u2019s super-heavy oil of about 1 per cent \u2013 <\/em>1 per cent! \u2013 okay. And for the regular oil, the heavy oil, it was 16 per cent. So the oil companies were keeping 84 per cent, and Chavez said: \u201cYou\u2019re going to have to pay 30 per cent, you can only keep 70 per cent of our oil\u2026 You gotta split off a bit for the people of Venezuela.\u201d And, of course, that made him enemy number one \u2013 not to Americans, but to America\u2019s landlords, the oil companies.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Regional specialist Mark Weisbrot commented<\/a> recently on the Venezuelan opposition\u2019s US allies:<\/p>\n

    These right-wing U.S. politicians \u2013 with much cooperation from all of the U.S. administrations of the past 15 years \u2013 have consistently fought to overthrow the Venezuelan government. This is all they can think about, regardless of the consequences of escalating violence, increased suffering, or even civil war.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Weisbrot\u2019s overly-optimistic conclusion:<\/p>\n

    The U.S. strategy of \u201cregime change\u201d has contributed to the death of hundreds of thousands of people \u2014 mostly civilians \u2014 in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. It has also had a hideous history in the Americas. Hopefully something has been learned from these crimes and tragedies.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The BBC\u2019s Propaganda Blitz<\/strong><\/p>\n

    In numerous \u2018reports\u2019, the BBC has presented damning criticism of the Venezuelan government, often with no or nominal balance. We will sample below from a large number of similar offerings with a few related examples from other corporate media.<\/p>\n

    On May 6, the BBC published a piece titled<\/a>: \u2018Venezuela protests: Women march against Maduro\u2019. The article reported:<\/p>\n

    The US has also expressed concern about what UN ambassador Nikki Haley called a \u201cviolent crackdown\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

    At least 36 people have died and hundreds have been injured in weeks of protests.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    This gave the impression that a government \u2018crackdown\u2019 was responsible for the deaths. But the truth was more mixed. In July, Venezuela Analysis reported<\/a> that since violent anti-government protests began on April 4, there had been 14 deaths caused by the authorities and 23 direct victims of opposition political violence, with 61 deaths disputed or unaccounted for.<\/p>\n

    Like so many BBC articles, this one focused on claims that Venezuela is a \u2018dictatorship\u2019:<\/p>\n

    \u201cThe dictatorship is living its last days and Maduro knows it,\u201d former MP Maria Corina Machado told AFP news agency at the women\u2019s march.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The BBC even included a comment presumably intended to remind readers of the infamous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad (in fact orchestrated by US forces):<\/p>\n

    Meanwhile video posted on social media purportedly showed the pulling down of a small statue of Hugo Chavez in the western town of Rosario de Perija.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    In similar vein, a May 9 BBC piece<\/a> included the comment:<\/p>\n

    The secretary general of the Organisation of American States (OAS) likened the country to a dictatorship.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    While recognising that the Maduro government certainly merits criticism for mishandling the current situation, \u2018both economically and politically\u2019, political analyst Greg Wilpert noted<\/a> that \u2018none of the arguments against the democratic legitimacy of the Maduro government hold much water\u2019. Moreover, \u2018polls repeatedly indicate that even though Maduro is fairly unpopular, a majority of Venezuelans want him to finish his term in office, which expires in January 2019\u2019.<\/p>\n

    Western media devoted intense coverage to Maduro\u2019s decision to hold elections for a Constituent Assembly in July. In response, the Trump administration extended sanctions. Mark Weisbrot commented<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    The pretext for the sanctions is that the new Constitutional Assembly will essentially carry out a coup d\u2019etat, abolishing the National Assembly \u2013 which the opposition won by a wide margin in December 2015 \u2013 and allowing President Nicolas Maduro to cancel presidential elections, which are due next year.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    But as Weisbrot noted, such a cancellation \u2018will not happen automatically\u2019 as a result of the Constituent Assembly election, and so \u2018it does not make sense that the sanctions should be triggered by the election itself\u2019.<\/p>\n

    On May 11, the BBC published<\/a> \u2018Inside Venezuela\u2019s anti-government protests\u2019. The first comment relayed by the BBC:<\/p>\n

    There\u2019s no freedom of expression here in Venezuela. There\u2019s no freedom of any kind.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Media analyst Joe Emersberger describes<\/a> the reality:<\/p>\n

    The biggest lie told over the past fifteen years about Venezuela is that its media is cowed by the government and that it has rendered the opposition voiceless.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    He adds<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    In fact the protests and the leading opposition leaders\u2019 take on the protests are being extensively covered on the largest private networks: Venevision, Televen, Globovision. If people abroad sampled Venezuela\u2019s TV media directly, as opposed to judging it by what is said about it by the international media and some big NGOs, they\u2019d be shocked to find the opposition constantly denouncing the government and even making very thinly veiled appeals to the military to oust Maduro.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The BBC\u2019s second quoted opinion:<\/p>\n

    \u2018e\u2019re here to put an end to the dictatorship in Venezuela, so that our children can grow up in a free Venezuela.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    There was no balance and there have been no similar compilations looking \u2018inside\u2019 Venezuela\u2019s pro-government protests. One would hardly guess that Maduro was elected president on April 14, 2013 in a democratic election.<\/p>\n

    In a May 12 report<\/a>, \u2018Venezuela protests: a week in pictures\u2019, the BBC included two successive photo captions, which read:<\/p>\n

    People angry with the government of President Nicolas Maduro have been taking to the streets almost daily since the beginning of April.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    And:<\/p>\n

    Many have been injured, and there have been close to 40 protest-related deaths.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    This again suggested that people \u2018angry with the government\u2019 had been killed. Opposition violence<\/a> has included bomb attacks on police, grenades thrown at the supreme court building from a helicopter, a government supporter burned alive, shootings, attempted lynchings, and so on. This violence was not mentioned by Paul Mason when he condemned<\/a> \u2018Maduro\u2019s crackdown\u2019 in the Guardian<\/em>. A New York Times<\/em> op-ed under the title, \u2018Venezuela Needs International Intervention. Now.,\u2019 commented<\/a> in similar vein:<\/p>\n

    President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro has responded with an iron fist. More than 50 people have been killed, 1,000 injured, and 2,700 arrested\u2026<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The bomb attack on Venezuelan National Guard soldiers shown in this video<\/a>, severely injuring several of the soldiers and cheered by people watching, would, of course, have been described by all US-UK media as a \u2018terror attack\u2019, if it had happened in the West.<\/p>\n

    The Guardian<\/em> published<\/a> a similar photo gallery of anti-government protestors, but not of pro-government protestors. The compilation came with remarkable captions of this kind:<\/p>\n

    Drawing inspiration from Ukraine\u2019s 2013-14 revolt, young protesters in Venezuela carry Viking-like shields as they battle government security forces during protests against President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    One photo caption read:<\/p>\n

    \u2018\u201dMiraflores on fire\u201d is written on the front of this shield. Miraflores Palace is the president\u2019s official workplace\u2019<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Another:<\/p>\n

    The opposition says President Maduro has created a dictatorship. The last parliamentary vote held in 2015 gave the opposition a majority but the government has repeatedly blocked any attempts to oust Maduro<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The BBC\u2019s May 16 piece was titled<\/a>, \u2018Venezuela: Teenager killed as mass protests rage\u2019. A May 18 BBC piece<\/a> maintained the sense of developing crisis: \u2018Venezuela: Soldiers sent to quell looting amid protests\u2019. On May 22, a BBC report<\/a> opened with these words:<\/p>\n

    \u201cVenezuela is now a dictatorship,\u201d says Luis Ugalde, a Spanish-born Jesuit priest who during his 60 years living in Venezuela has become one of the South American nation\u2019s most well-known political scientists.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The BBC later offered<\/a> another \u2018inside\u2019 look at anti-government protestors: \u2018Apathy to activism: Venezuelan students on why they protest.\u2019 Mario Bonucci, rector of the University of the Andes, was quoted:<\/p>\n

    This is an institution where you can speak your mind freely without fear of repercussion and that\u2019s uncomfortable for this government.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    A remark that again ignored the fact that widespread criticism of Maduro\u2019s government is<\/em> published and broadcast by many Venezuelan media. The BBC offered no balancing comment.<\/p>\n

    The 2002 Coup: Telling Omissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

    On July 9, the BBC wrote<\/a> of opposition leader Leopoldo L\u00f3pez:<\/p>\n

    Venezuelan President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro has praised the decision to release from prison one of the country\u2019s main opposition leaders, Leopoldo L\u00f3pez\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

    Mr L\u00f3pez was serving a 14-year sentence for inciting violence during anti-government protests in 2014, a charge he has always denied. The Supreme Court said he was released on health grounds.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    There is rather more to be said about Lopez. Venezuela Analysis commented<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    Lopez is also well known in Venezuela for his active participation in the April 2002 coup against the democratically elected president Hugo Ch\u00e1vez. During the coup, using his authority as Mayor of Chacao, he led the illegal arrest of Minister of Justice Ram\u00f3n Rodr\u00edguez Chac\u00edn.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The report continued:<\/p>\n

    In a joint appeal with Maria Corina Machado, L\u00f3pez called on citizens to join his \u201cLa Salida\u201d campaign (\u201cThe Way Out\u201d), described the government as a \u201cdictatorship\u201d and called on Venezuelans to \u201crise up\u201d emulating the example of January 23, 1958 (when a popular uprising overthrew the Perez Jimenez dictatorship). The message was clear: Venezuela was a dictatorship, the government had to be overthrown by force.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The Guardian<\/em> also reported<\/a> on Lopez:<\/p>\n

    Security agents have since seized two opposition leaders from their homes after they called for protests against the vote.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Joe Emersberger pointed<\/a> out some telling omissions:<\/p>\n

    Umm no. Leopoldo Lopez \u2013 while already under house arrest \u2013 made a video in which he called for a military coup. Don\u2019t try this while under house arrest in the UK, where you can get put away for Facebook posts advocating a riot (even if you are not under house arrest at the time).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Writing for OffGuardian<\/em>, Ricardo Vaz asked<\/a> of corporate media performance:<\/p>\n

    Why is there never a mention that the opposition leadership is full of protagonists from that US-backed military coup that ultimately failed? Quite simply because it would undermine the entire \u201cdemocracy vs. dictatorship\u201d propaganda narrative.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Numerous journalists have attempted to use the Venezuelan crisis to also attack Jeremy Corbyn as part of the relentless smear campaign<\/a> against him. In The Times<\/em>, David Aaronovitch wrote<\/a> of the Venezuelan revolution:<\/p>\n

    I believe we need to know why you [Jeremy Corbyn] think it\u2019s failed.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    This from the columnist who has tirelessly backed wars of \u2018liberation\u2019 generating mass death and utter disaster in Iraq<\/a>, Libya<\/a> and Syria<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Conclusion:\u00a0 Enforcing \u201cThe Truth\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The goal of a mass media propaganda campaign is to create the impression that \u2018everybody knows\u2019 that Saddam is a \u2018threat\u2019, Gaddafi is \u2018about to commit mass murder\u2019, Assad \u2018has to go\u2019, Corbyn is \u2018destroying the Labour party\u2019, and so on. The picture of the world presented must be clear-cut. The public must be made to feel certain that the \u2018good guys\u2019 are basically benevolent, and the \u2018bad guys\u2019 are absolutely appalling and must be removed.<\/p>\n

    This is achieved by relentless repetition of the theme over days, weeks, months and even years. Numerous individuals and organisations are used to give the impression of an informed consensus \u2013 there is no doubt! <\/em>Once this \u2018truth\u2019 has been established, anyone contradicting or even questioning it is typically portrayed as a shameful \u2018apologist\u2019 in order to deter further dissent and enforce conformity.<\/p>\n

    A key to countering this propaganda is to ask some simple questions: Why are US-UK governments and corporate media much more concerned about suffering in Venezuela than the far worse horrors afflicting war-torn, famine-stricken Yemen? Why do UK MPs rail against Maduro while rejecting a parliamentary motion<\/a> to suspend UK arms supplies to their Saudi Arabian allies attacking Yemen? Why is the imperfect state of democracy in Venezuela a source of far greater outrage than outright tyranny in Saudi Arabia? The answers could hardly be more obvious.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \u2018Oil giants face reserves blow in Venezuela grab,\u2019 Evening Standard<\/em>, April 30, 2007. []<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      ________________________________________<\/p>\n

      Media Lens is a UK-based media watchdog group headed by David Edwards and David Cromwell. The second Media Lens book, <\/em>Newspeak: In the 21st Century<\/a> by David Edwards and David Cromwell, was published in 2009 by Pluto Press.<\/em><\/p>\n

      Go to Original \u2013 dissidentvoice.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      13 Sep 2017 – As the late media activist Danny Schechter wrote, when it comes to the corporate broadcast media: \u2018The more you watch, the less you know.\u2019 Schechter\u2019s observation only fails in one key respect: \u2018mainstream\u2019 output does tell us a lot about which foreign governments are being lined up for regime change.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[62],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98718","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98718","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98718"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98718\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98718"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98718"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98718"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}