Yet this kind of 'omission bias' is widespread in public discourse about Syria: broad swathes of the 'anti-war' left, from the respectable end of the spectrum (Pilger, Medialens) through to the Internet's wilder 'anti-establishment' conspiracists (Global Research, 21st Century Wire) subscribe to a simplistic, US-centric conception of 'anti-imperialism' that blinds them to the geopolitical objectives and military aggression of non-Western powers. While many of these commentators quite rightly deplore the biases of the 'corporate media' coming out of Washington and London, they themselves receive encouragement if not material support from the enemies of the West, and produce news stories to match.
I don't make this criticism lightly. After writing a short article recently about the biased Western reporting of the Syrian war, I myself was accused by one or two people of pro-Assad bias, ignoring a genocide, and so on. I don't accept such criticisms. For one thing, my article - like Khalek's short piece above, to be fair - made it clear that my focus was on Western reporting. And why not? After all, I live in the West and my article was written for Westerners who watch and listen to Western news media. But more importantly, my article unequivocally stated, more than once, my contempt for the actions of Assad and Putin.
The recent record of US involvement in Syria is deplorable; but the 'campist' perspective that my enemy's enemy is my friend, whether born of expediency or naivety, is unprincipled. Neither 'side' in the Syrian war should be given any quarter and we should reject all media propaganda, whether it emanates from the BBC, The Guardian and the journalists and academics who follow their line (George Monbiot, Rupert Read and other liberal 'interventionists') or from RT, Press TV and the Internet's lunatic fringe.