By Jaime Ortega.
The Daily Journalist is not liberal or conservative. We sponsor journalism, something forgotten inside the mainstream media sphere, for the past few decades.
If you were looking forward to watch a horrible analysis from an important news agency supposed to sponsor real journalism, you should have seen the biased intake broadcasted on television yesterday in CNN.
The Anderson Cooper 360 show, aired a debate called “Putin’s message to America.”
It was clear right from the start of the show, that no matter what, Al-Assad was and had to be responsible for the chemical attack in Ghouta, that nearly killed 1,300 innocent civilians.
Andrew Sullivan, Christiane Amanpour guest on Coopers show, were absolutely horrible in their analysis about the Syrian war, and Putin’s role as a tyrant. They showed no evidence that the SAA had used the chemical weapons, but criticized Putin for backing Assad instead.
They completely mixed two different topics, as the goal was to make Putin look arrogant and blame it on Assad’s regime for using WMD’s, (A = A, B = B, A = B … Failure!) You get the point.
This irrelevant mixture is a psychological technique commonly used in mainstream media to create a magical sphere to oppose a cause. If you blame the milk man, for coming late, you could also blame him for the milk not tasting like coca cola.
Putin might be a tyrant, and he is no doubt far from being an angel, but you cannot mix up his valid argument with his tyrannical status without giving the benefit of the doubt or at the very least, a fair chance to test his claims.
His point about the U.S. Intelligence lack of evidence about Syria’s use of weapons of mass destruction is indeed a valid point, a point that should be investigated more extensively by these so ‘called analyst’ that are supposed to analyze with facts the credibility of their own remarks.
Where is Obama’s proof the chemical attack was done by Al-Assad? Show us? Because without evidence it’s hard to propose convincing facts!
Cooper forgot to comment that arming the rebels was actually synonymous of helping Al-Qaeda, who is backed by the own rebels.
But perhaps CNN, was keen to state that Obama supports Al-Qaeda, and instead choose words like “Obama supports the rebels”, because many U.S. veterans would understandably feel betrayed after fighting global terrorism, after supporting the Army they love and served all their lives.
Never in the analysis was it said “that Al-Qaeda disposes of chemical weapons, nor was it given as an option once that Al-Qaeda could have likewise been responsible for the chemical attack as shown by The Daily Journalist, on previous reports and background intelligence.
This shows not only that CNN is not a reliable news agency, but also that these analysts are either getting paid to support Obama’s terror crusade or they’re simply not bright enough to seriously take a look at the other side of the horizon without scratching their heads.
The CNN show should definitely not be called AC360, instead it should be changed to AC180, because of its bias. Disgusting in my opinion.
