Exclusive: Every day, The New York Times – America’s “paper of record” – sinks deeper into the swamp of propaganda, now reliably touting predictable neocon notions about the Middle East and Russia, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The New York Times’ downward spiral into a neoconservative propaganda sheet continues with another biased lead article, this one on how the Syrian war has heightened U.S.-Russia tensions. The article, bristling with blame for the Russians, leaves out one of the key reasons why the partial ceasefire failed – the U.S. inability to separate its “moderate” rebels from Al Qaeda’s jihadists.
The article, written by Michael R. Gordon and Andrew E. Kramer (two of the paper’s top national security propagandists), lays the fault for the U.S. withdrawal from Syrian peace talks on Russian leaders because of their “mistrust and hostility toward the United States,” citing a comment by former White House official Andrew S. Weiss.
New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)
Gordon and Kramer then write that the cessation of hostilities agreement came undone because of the “accidental bombing of Syrian troops by the American-led coalition and then because of what the United States claimed was a deliberate bombing by Russian aircraft and Syrian helicopters of a humanitarian convoy headed to Aleppo.” (The Times doesn’t bother to note that the Russians have questioned how “accidental” the slaughter of 62 or so Syrian troops was and have denied that they or the Syrian government attacked the aid convoy.)
The article continues citing U.S. intelligence officials accusing Russia and Syria of using indiscriminate ordnance in more recent attacks on rebel-held sections of Aleppo. “Unfortunately, Russia failed to live up to its own commitments,” said a State Department statement, according to Gordon and Kramer.
However, left out of the article was the fact that the U.S. government failed to live up to its commitment to separate U.S.-backed supposedly “moderate” rebels from Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, which has recently changed its name to the Levant (or Syria) Conquest Front. By contrast, this key point was cited by Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, which noted:
“Russia has complained that Washington wasn’t upholding its end of the bargain by failing to separate U.S.-backed Syrian rebels from more extremist groups tied to al Qaeda.”
Doubling Down with Al Qaeda
Indeed, The Wall Street Journal has actually done some serious reporting on this crucial topic, publishing an article from Turkey on Sept. 29, saying: “Some of Syria’s largest rebel factions are doubling down on their alliance with an al Qaeda-linked group, despite a U.S. warning to split from the extremists or risk being targeted in airstrikes.
![U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the YouTube video]](https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-21-at-12.32.20-PM.png)
U.S.-backed Syrian “moderate” rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the YouTube video]
“The two powers have been considering jointly targeting Islamic State and the Syria Conquest Front — formerly known as the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front — a group that is deeply intermingled with armed opposition groups of all stripes across Syria’s battlefields. The U.S. has also threatened to attack any rebels providing front-line support to the group. …
“Some rebel groups already aligned with Syria Conquest Front responded by renewing their alliance. But others, such as Nour al-Din al-Zinki, a former Central Intelligence Agency-backed group and one of the largest factions in Aleppo, said in recent days that they were joining a broader alliance that is dominated by the Front. A second, smaller rebel group also joined that alliance, which is known as Jaish al-Fateh and includes another major Islamist rebel force, Ahrar al-Sham. …
“In a call with Mr. Kerry on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Syrian rebels ‘refused to follow the U.S.-Russian agreement…but instead merged with [Nusra Front].’”
So, it should be clear that a major obstacle to the agreement was the failure of the U.S. government to persuade its clients to break off alliances with Al Qaeda’s operatives, a connection that many Americans would find deeply troubling. That public awareness, in turn, would undermine the current neocon P.R. campaign to get the Obama administration to supply these rebels with anti-aircraft missiles and other sophisticated weapons, or to have U.S. warplanes destroy the Syrian air force in order to impose a “no-fly zone.”
Since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011, the powerful role of Al Qaeda and its spinoff, the Islamic State, has been a hidden or downplayed element of the narrative that has been sold to the American people. That storyline holds that the war began when “peaceful” protesters were brutally repressed by Syria’s police and military, but that version deletes the fact that extremists, some linked to Al Qaeda, began killing police and soldiers almost from the outset.
Hiding Realities
However, since The New York Times is now a full-time neocon propaganda sheet, it does all it can to hide such troublesome realities from its readers, all the better to jazz up the hatred of Syria and Russia.
Video of the Russian SU-24 exploding in flames inside Syrian territory after it was shot down by Turkish air-to-air missiles on Nov. 24, 2015.
As the Times and the Journal both made clear in their articles on Tuesday, the neocon agenda now involves providing more American armaments to the rebels either directly through the CIA or indirectly through U.S. regional “allies,” such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.
Though pitched to the American people as “humanitarian” assistance needed to shoot down Syrian and Russian planes, the arming-up of the rebels will likely extend the war and the bloodletting even longer while strengthening Al Qaeda and the Islamic State,.
If the new U.S. weapons prove especially effective, they could even lead to the collapse of the Syrian government and bring about the neocons’ long-desired “regime change” in Damascus. But the ultimate winners would likely be Al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State, which could be expected to follow up with the mass slaughter of Christians, Alawites, Shiites, secular Sunnis and other “heretics.”
More likely, however, the U.S.-supplied weapons would just cause the war to drag on indefinitely with an ever-rising death toll. But don’t worry, the dead will be blamed on Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad.
Although never mentioned in the mainstream U.S. media, the delivery of weapons to these Syrian rebels/terrorists are a clear violation of international law, an act of aggression and arguably a crime of aiding and abetting terrorists.
International law is something that the Times considers sacrosanct when the newspaper is condemning a U.S. adversary for some violation, but that reverence disappears when the U.S. government or a U.S. “ally” is engaged in the same act or worse.
So, it is understandable why Gordon and Kramer would leave out facts from their story that might give Americans pause. After all, if the “moderate” rebels are in cahoots with Al Qaeda, essentially serving as a cut-out for the U.S. and its “allies” to funnel dangerous weapons to the terror organization that carried out the 9/11 attacks, Americans might object.
Similarly, if they were told that the U.S. actions violate international law, they might find that upsetting, too, since many Americans aren’t as coolly hypocritical as Official Washington’s neocons and liberal war hawks.
Beyond the devolution of The New York Times into a neocon propaganda organ, Gordon and Kramer have their own histories as propagandists. Gordon co-wrote the infamous “aluminum tube” story in September 2002, launching President George W. Bush’s ad campaign for selling the Iraq War to the American people. Gordon also has gotten his hands into disinformation campaigns regarding Syria and Ukraine.
Photograph published by the New York Times purportedly taken in Russia of Russian soldiers who later appeared in eastern Ukraine. However, the photographer has since stated that the photo was actually taken in Ukraine, and the U.S. State Department has acknowledged the error.
For instance, Gordon and Kramer teamed up on a bogus lead story that the State Department fed to them in 2014 about photographs supposedly taken of soldiers in Russia who then turned up in other photos in Ukraine – except that it turned out all the photos were taken in Ukraine, destroying the premise of the story and forcing an embarrassing retraction. [For more on that screw-up, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Another NYT-Michael Gordon Special?”]
For his part, Kramer has been a central figure in the Times’ anti-Russian propaganda regarding Ukraine. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Is Lost in Its Ukraine Propaganda.”]
So, between the Times’ neocon institutional bias – and the apparent personal agendas of key correspondents – one can expect very little in the way of balanced journalism when the topics relate to the Middle East or Russia.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
How dare the Russians try to trick us? (On the other hand, don’t we wish that they didn’t have any real, lethal weaponry?)
Long ago, I realized that The New York Times was the capitalist world’s equivalent of Pravda, and The Washington Post the equivalent of Izvestia. The Guardian is definitely a cut above both of them, but, given how low the two United States newpapers are, that is not saying much.
Thank you for the excellent publication. People of the West must know the truth.
What does the NYT have to say about this Israeli violation of international law?
Israel intercepts boat seeking to break Gaza blockade: All-female activist boat carrying aid from Spain to the Gaza Strip is taken into Israeli custody. – http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/israel-intercepts-boat-seeking-break-gaza-blockade-161005173300505.html
…because of what the United States claimed was a deliberate bombing by Russian aircraft and Syrian helicopters of a humanitarian convoy headed to Aleppo.”
The September 19 attack on a UN humanitarian convoy in Aleppo was “a well-prepared hoax”, according to a group of independent military experts attached to the International Syria Support Group (ISSG).
On September 19, a UN-Syrian Arab Red Crescent convoy carrying humanitarian aid for the Aleppo province was hit by a strike, according to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). As a result, 18 of 31 trucks were destroyed and at least 21 individuals were killed. According to the report seen by RIA Novosti, the experts studied the video recording made by the Russian drones accompanying the convoy, where “a car with a trailer clearly carrying a large-caliber mortar” can be seen. They also noted that al-Nusra Front-controlled militants were active in the region, when the convoy was attacked.
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20161005/1046020958/un-convoy-attack-hoax.html
But, we have to wonder. The Pentagon spent 540 million bucks paying a UK firm to make fake terror videos. At least the New York Times does propaganda for free. After all, “fiscal responsibility” is an important consideration. Now, if we could just get Disney, CNN and NPR onboard, we could probably afford to fix the water problem in Flint, Michigan and pay for solutions to to the Zika virus outbreak. Funny, nobody is asking Julian Assange or Edward Snowden, “Where’s the beef?” What’s that? Oh, I didn’t realize…CNN, NPR and Disney are already onboard?
Every time I linked to your article the comment was removed in Guardian, most recently here below. It amounts to straight censorship. The Guardian is a sister paper to the NYT practising down right manipulation of public opinion. I save screen shots and PDFs of the comment before it was disappeared.
Judge for yourself if the comment was offensive or off topic, linking and quoting is normal practice on the Guardian’s CIF. This the comment which was disappeared:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/05/aleppo-death-bashar-al-assad
It is important on any story to read opposing opinions, on one side we have the Guardian’s sources that are predominantly supporting the Rebel side in this conflict. It is important to understand who the rebels are. Robert Parry has long experience in the US media breaking many stories that have become accepted as matters of record, his voice should be allowed to throw some light on the issues. I would ask the Guardian to ask Robert Parry to contribute an article for the sake of fairness and balance.
Robert Parry is a top US investigative journalist who broke many stories including the Iran-Contra scandal for AP.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/04/the-nyts-neocon-downward-spiral/
So, it is understandable why Gordon and Kramer would leave out facts from their story that might give Americans pause. After all, if the “moderate” rebels are in cahoots with Al Qaeda, essentially serving as a cut-out for the U.S. and its “allies” to funnel dangerous weapons to the terror organization that carried out the 9/11 attacks, Americans might object.
Similarly, if they were told that the U.S. actions violate international law, they might find that upsetting, too, since many Americans aren’t as coolly hypocritical as Official Washington’s neocons and liberal war hawks.
Thank you again for a thoughtful and well documented piece. The level of hubris and Orwellian double speak (use double unthink) which is spewed forth from our vaunted “newspaper of record” (and other similar neocon/corporate organs) is astounding to most with a bit of skepticism.
Now these actors “journalists” whose serious pursuit of journalism with the eye on integrity and an observance of the ideal of a fourth estate is obviously skewed, write what is clearly exposed as propaganda. The freedom of the press which allows true and consequential muck raking, is now not preforming its intended role, as now the intermingling of corporate power with the enforcing hand of government law, these two have, as is the case in fascist states, turned the press into nothing less than pure propagandists.
Rather than an advocate for accountability of government to the people, that voice which was empowered by the US Constitution, is now no less, and in this modern age perhaps worse, than the flaky press once ridiculed in the West; the papers of record from once and present “enemy” States, ie; Pravda, Peoples’ Daily, etc…
It is now as trustworthy as Pravda was during the Cold War.
I do hope that President Obama will resist the war pushers around him. The president has resisted before and I cannot think that is about to change in these final days in office.
Has the country faced a similar situation before, where the two individuals running for President are both under utterly disqualified from holding the office? Does that affect the calculus for the MIC?
Don’t forget the TIME Magazine; it’s hitting rock bottom.
The New York Times remains a key player in the latest Propaganda 3.0 campaign that undergirds Washington and NATO’s “hybrid war” against Russia and Syria.
Joining fake “citizen investigative journalist” Eliot Higgins and neocon “regime change” think tanks like the Atlantic, Gordon and Kramer of the NYT are tugging away furiously in one great Propaganda 3.0 circle jerk.
Following the bogus “open source” pretense of Higgins, the Atlantic Council and the Times persistently conflate “social media documents” with actual “intel”.
https://twitter.com/gordonnyt/status/603870722214252544
Higgins was co-author of Atlantic Council “reports” on Ukraine (May 2015) and Syria (April 2016), both predominantly based on Higgins’ debunked Bellingcat “investigations”.
Footnotes in the Atlantic Council reports cite NYT articles by Gordon and Kramer that ostensibly “confirm” the “findings” of Higgins.
Returning the “favor”, Gordon, Kramer, and other “reporters” at the Times write articles to promote the now “confirmed” ingenious “findings” of the “independent” Higgins and Bellingcat.
Like some maniacal mantra, Higgins and Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council, and the Times constantly repeat the word “confirm”.
Undismayed with Higgins’ flaccid “findings”, Gordon and Kramer frequently give the Bellingcat and Atlantic Council authors a generous reach around, unquestioningly enabling the infirm Higgins to keep it up.
Today, fake news reports are published in increasingly convincing and sophisticated ways by fake “independent citizen journalists” like Bellingcat.
But now it’s even more obscene.
Thanks to Google, Propaganda 3.0 has metastasized.
Google, an enthusiastic supporter of Higgins despite his track record of debunked claims about Syria and Russia, helped form the First Draft Coalition in June 2015 with support Bellingcat as a founding member.
In addition to the fake “independent investigators” at Bellingcat, the First Draft “partner network” includes the New York Times and Washington Post, the two principal neocon “regime change” propaganda media organs.
In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Propaganda 3.0 coalition will “work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process”.
Following the lead of Higgins and Bellingcat, the new Google Minitrue (a self-appointed Ministry of Truth) will unleash a pack of social media “journalists” prepared to say 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants.
Thank you for this article, Mr Parry and for holding the NYT accountable for their shoddy reporting and their editorial hubris that serves what I believe is a dangerous neocon agenda.
Years before Rupert Murdoch took over the WSJ, I remember that Noam Chomsky pointed out that the WSJ had a more reliable news side than the NYT. So it’s interesting that that continues even today.
But going back to the Iraq War I became so disgusted with the NYT that I decided I couldn’t stomach reading that rag any more. You are doing yeoman’s work!
And interestingly, when I was reading your article “Do we really want war with Russia? the other day and was distracted and then accidentally jumped ahead to the portion where you were quoting the “lead editorial” in the NYT, before I regained my bearings I thought I recognized the writing as a NYT editorial before I realized that was exactly what it was.
I recognized the smug certainty with a sprinkle of self satisfied ridicule. Typical editorial offering from the NYT. The author must have been around for a long time since his/her style seemed so familiar to me that I thought I recognized it as writing from the editorial pages of the Times.
I don’t really understand why they are considered a premier paper and why that’s true of the Washington Post when they are both really apologists for the wrongheaded power structure on foreign policy.
I guess being located in the two cities that are the center of economic/financial power and political power, it shouldn’t be surprising.
Thank you.
I’m leaving a link to an article written by Diana Johnstone of the “Queen of Chaos” fame. Diana Johnstone talks about a petition that Avaaz has out there calling for a No Fly Zone based on humanitarian issues, such as saving the children. Her article is a great read to go along side Mr Parry’s article presented here.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/04/overthrowing-the-syrian-government-a-joint-criminal-enterprise/
Both the Parry article and the Johnstone one are great articles. What they document is that the yankee regime has vacated the civilized world and is now in league with the barbarian element. Future historians (if any survive) will marvel at a climactic war entered into in defense of those who, if they weren’t in league with the yankee regime, would be excoriated as jihadis, ragheads, or whatever other derisive term one chooses to use. The lunatics have truly seized control of the asylum. The famous quote that it is not only criminal but stupid applies in this context in spades.
Here is something to think about EOM, the Russians are having 40 million people do a nuclear bomb drill, while America braces to find out if Brad will give up custody of the kids to Angelina. While I’m sure there are Russians who live so close to their borders, as to have a 50 yd line seat for any invasion that may come into their country, their American counterpart on the other hand gets to see over crowded beach fronts with polluted oceans slapping it’s shore, as our national conversation relapses to where we all show fake concern for Kim and Kanye getting robbed in Paris.
On a good day our media digs deep into Donald Trumps pass, because he once called Miss Universe Miss Piggy…okay, I get it his chauvinism is deplorable, but to dwell on this kind of stuff all day and into the night, is truly the media’s way of laughing at America behind our backs.
I wonder how many of us Americans there are, and if on the whole we have any idea of how crucial a period of time our country is in, and what we may do about it. The only think I hear being discussed is the presidential election, and how nobody likes either candidate.
One more observation, while America imports more and manufacturers/farms less, Russians due to the imposed sanctions are becoming more self sustainable due to the lack of access to imports. Why does the words self sustainability sound better to me than the self described branding of ourselves as being exceptional? Our being indispensability is based on a whole bunch of numbers that are being churned and grossly manipulated every second inside some computers servers to make certain people richer. This man made house of cards may have it’s destruction much nearer than it admits to itself, and this is due to a belief that the delusional reality they made up is really real, and it isn’t. This era which spans possibly back to 1913 when the U.S. Fed was born will only make future history readers shake their heads with amazement to how these same leaders who ruined a vibrant country like the U.S, were the same people who though they could run a New World Order…in a real world where reality is real they couldn’t run Rhode Island, let alone the World.
Lately with the media blitz on showing White Helmets bravely saving little Syrian children, and then going on to report that this catastrophe is the work of the Russians and the Syrians. I hate to say it, but this is incubators and blue Viagra pills time all over again, and these spoiled babies in our NeoNutJob government are teething on starting a war. I don’t know if somehow Russia could make America and it’s coalition of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, along with NATO, Israel, and Turkey back down, but I kind of doubt it. Just scan the coalition names, and just think of the varied interest they all have…a band of thieves!
I’m providing a link to another excellent article which elaborates on the double standards the New York Times employs to it’s framing of an event. I might add the site to where this link is attached has many thoughtful in depth reports.
http://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/syria-crisis/1234-new-york-times-russia.html
After the NYT’s propaganda to help activate the Bush/Cheney war on Iraq, it is bizarre that so many people buy into more dubious reports coming out of that disinformation mill. If the NYT were subject to prosecution similar to that applied to Julius Streicher at Nuremberg the NYT’s publishers and presstitutes would have been shut down a long time ago – or worse.
After the NYT’s propaganda to help activate the Bush/Cheney war on Iraq, it is bizarre that so many people buy into more dubious reports coming out of that disinformation mill.
On the contrary, current practice in our Orwellian world makes so many events “normal” that should be considered bizarre. President Obama repeatedly assures us that “no one is above the law” while he, members of his administration, members of congress and those who bribe them blatantly demonstrate they are not only above “the law” but above several laws. When accepting the Nobel Peace Prize Obama used his speech to justify war. How many awardees of this “peace” prize are judged by independent thinkers to be war criminals? Henry Kissinger and Shimon Peres come readily to mind. Elie Wiesel may not have been a war criminal from a legal viewpoint, but he endorsed Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Menachem Begin had lots of blood on his hands, but he was also an awardee. Then there are so many others honored with honorary degrees by so-called institutes of higher learning including what another correspondent referred to as the poison ivy league.
Then there is the Queen of Chaos who appears at this time will ascend her throne in the Evil Office in January 2017 – subject to a possible “October surprise” from Wikileaks.
Bill I’m leaving a link to a story about a guy Marc Turi who was selling arms to foreign entities. The only problem came about when Mr Turi told the government investigators that Hillary Clinton is guilty of the same crime. Our government being Hillary’s government dropped the charges on Mr Turi.
I’m probably not telling this story as well as it was written, so read this….
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-04/doj-drops-charges-against-arms-dealer-who-threatened-expose-hillary-arming-islamic-e
I am so grateful for these indispensable articles.
Not sure of the significance of the error. I thought earlier they were pictures alleged to have been taken in Ukraine which were actually taken in Russia. The picture shows Russian soldiers in Ukraine, which has been the position of the neocons, that there were Russian soldiers involved with the rebels.
The article, of course, supports the position that destroying ISIS is secondary to the US to destroying Assad’s government, and since he represents the Syrian nation, the destruction of Syria as a nation. We have enough money and firepower to make that happen and legality and morality have disappeared from our foreign policy a long time ago. In fact it could be argued, the claim that both existed occurred when the USSR was a formidable enemy and using legality and morality were useful tools in our Cold War pursuits.
Agreed. Indeed, the killing of 3.8 million Indochinese, overthrowing the popular and elected government of Mohammed Mossadeq of Iran, and the popular and elected governments of Guatemala and Hondorous, as well as 50 years of terrorism directed against the people of Cuba are perfect examples of such legality and morality….hmmm. Although perhaps we shouldnt look at the past with rose tinted glasses, it may very well assit in better understand the world we live in today.
Peace and love