Saturday, November 25, 2006

Finally! The BBC Suggests a False Flag Hit in Lebanon

Yes, they buried the lede. That's two things I learned in the newspaper business: Don't bury the lede, and don't spell it "lead". "Lede" is an inside-newspaper term. So the BBC buried the lede about the Lebanon hit, but in this case they had no choice. This article falls under my theory of how news organizations really work to put topics out there that the reporters suspect are true, but can't address openly. Why? The powers that be in their own corporate structures don't want them to go there.

Read this BBC story and you'll see a text book example. It discusses the strange lack of motive Syria had in this recent assassination in Lebanon. Could this have been a false flag hit by the Neo-Cons? They sure advanced their agenda more than Syria did. Of course, using the term "false flag" would imply too much knowledge of this dark world, so the BBC reporters didn't bother. But they did imply it, which is all the freedom most corporate services are allowed.

That's the real news in this story: "Absent a Syrian Motive, Lebanon Hit Seen as False Flag Operation". Now read the article and see how carefully the BBC is with this topic. It's buried so far down that it's almost comical. I can just see the editor saying, "All right lads. You buried the lede, and that was wrong. But it's better to bury the lede than lose our bloody jobs. At least we've put the story out there. Now let's see what happens.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Killing plunges Lebanon deeper into crisis


At 9:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Lack of knowledge is dangerous because it leaves people to draw conclusions based on their prejudices."

A news report at its best. The relevant present and past facts are identified. The opinions gathered from others are presented. The possibilities are analyzed. The writer is poignent in his observations. Journalism.

At 10:00 AM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

The reporter finally got to the point: The story in the media that we've been fed from immediately after the attack, doesn't make any sense. Why hasn't that been noted earlier. The assassination was reported in such a way that most people assume Syria was to blame. This reporter is the first I've seen to question that theory. If journalism was in better shape, the obvious problem with blaming Syria would have been reported from day 1. There might also have been investigative journalists actually looking into this. We could have our best reporters using their sources in the intelligence community to find out what really happened. Any suggestions who our best investigative journalists would be?

At 8:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...



Post a Comment

<< Home