About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view anne48503's profile
    Posted October 31, 2015 by
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    Sound off

    More from anne48503

    MSM Is Fracturing Part 1

    If you want to understand why many are turning to alternative news channels when it comes to speaking about the war in Syria all you have to do is look back in recent history. It’s not just about the lie MSM sold to us about WMD’s in Iraq. Let’s turn to the beginning of the Syrian ‘civil’ conflict.
    I was on FB when a friend from Egypt contacted me telling me he is sad. I asked, why? He said, ‘because I am sitting here watching as the politicians in our region are being systemically eliminated.’ I asked, how? He said ‘I just watched the minister of defense of Syria be killed by a suicide bomber pretending to be a cameraman.’ He was watching the MSM on that side of the world.
    I turned on the news. By this time I rarely watched the MSM news; but guess what I was seeing in my news channels? Nothing on the minister of Defense of Syria being blown up by a terrorist. Instead, I saw the prime minister of Israel on my screens condemning the suicide bomber blowing up “Jews, on a bus” somewhere over where we are not affected by the news except it is Israeli’s way of deception or cover up. This look over here and lets make noise about the exact same type of act using some same keywords like ‘minister’ and ‘suicide bombing’ made it so that when I typed in Google suicide bombing I got the information that Netanyahu put out.
    It’s how Google works.
    We are set up and separated in our knowledge we receive by region and language. My search will not be the same as what Egyptians will see when they do the same Google search; especially if there is the same type of news here as over there.
    This is why Netanyahu came on the air at around the exact same time the Google was getting the information on the suicide bombing that ‘kicked off’ the Syrian uprising.
    Why didn’t the MSM cover or even FB Home streams not show both acts? The reason for that would have made most people upset because a ‘terrorist’ using ‘terror tools’ defined by Bush’s speech on September 27, 2001 by the ‘rebels’ who came into the country to usurp the government would never be seen as ‘moderates’ but as ‘the enemy’ and they would by law need to ‘help Assad’.

    After this kick off, our MSM started to speak highly of these mercenary foreign ‘rebels’ who used terror tools by describing them as ‘Syrians who want regime change’. They wanted to describe the beginning as a civil uprising; just people unsatisfied with the government but then the ‘rebels’ as MSM describes the terrorists, started killing and kidnapping and ransoming the people… What happened after that… is war.
    At first the US using the mouthpiece of MSM said they were not supplying the rebels with weapons. Now with Russia coming in LAWFULLY by being asked by Syria, the US using MSM again cries foul because there are ‘moderate rebels’ that the US and coalition has been funding and giving weapons to oust Assad. These moderate rebels are also none other than Al Qaeda with a different name. http://journal-neo.org/2015/03/23/rebranding-alqaeda-s-jabhat-al-nusra-as-moderates/
    History can be revised but you cannot deny that Syria and this regime is a ‘moderate’ leader in the region comparably. There is over 700,000 Christians in Syria or there was before this uprising and these ‘rebels’ disrupting lives and they were not hiding in fear from their belief there. Can Saudi Arabia say this?? http://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/world-watch-list/saudi-arabia/

    Why would we want to be partners with Saudi Arabia who cuts off more heads every year than any other country and had 9 of their citizens commit terrorism on our soil? Who is number 12 in the world of worst nations that persecute Christians. (I’m not a Christian but this is relevant when calling Assad a ‘cruel dictator’... before the war he was the most moderate ‘dictator’ in the Middle East.
    The problem with MSM is there is no investigative research; you all are just reading a script a computer wrote for you. There is just bias and one sidedness for $$.
    Take for instance the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico coverage. This is the time and reason I stopped watching MSM and you lost all credibility from me and will never get it back until there are laws made to stop profit in our news coverage.
    First, lets start with the cause of the explosion. There was a piece broke on the rig owned by TransOcean who was hired by BP to drill their well. When I first heard TransOcean I did a Google search on them. At the time I didn’t understand how Wikipedia worked and how history is revised using this tool on the search engines or know why Wikipedia is on top front page EVERY TIME you do a search, but it said that TransOcean owned 90+% of the rigs in the ocean; Wikipedia on TransOcean does not say this today. Regardless, these rigs are needed for every well drilled in our oceans all over the world. TransOcean made a CORPORATE DECISION to wait until ‘this job’ (the BP job) got over before replacing the broken piece.
    Secondly, the ‘piece’ that was broken was the main piece that does the drilling that is under constant added pressure the deeper it gets. The piece either was estimated to cost about $250,000 to replace…
    Additionally, there was Halliburton who has the monopoly in adding the mud that helps control the pressure the rig would endure when they got down onto the bottom of the ocean to drill the well.
    Halliburton MADE A CORPORATE DECISION to removed the mud and just let the sea water in while the drill, that had a broken piece that had all the pressure concentrated on from the sea and the work of drilling, the methane and other gas pressures do all the work.
    Now I’m no paid reporter; nor do I have all the facts behind the scene, but I am a business woman and I know how business works.
    When BP hired TransOcean to drill their well they became a ‘customer’ for TransOcean. TransOcean became the Contractor. TransOcean hired a subcontractor named Halliburton to do a part of the work that Halliburton has a monopoly on.

    The customer does not make decisions about the Contractors equipment. The Contractors, nor do subcontractors, try to help the customer to ‘save them money’ by not charging them for the mud they were hired to come on the rig to use. So why did our government tell them to stop pointing fingers and after some back door discussions BP gets the blame? Why? Because BP is a little fish in this big pond scheme.
    BP though is not blameless here but their decision to go against the EPA and use CorExit to make magic to protect the lands from looking like a real oil spill is beside the point here, and another reason MSM doesn’t deserve the time of day, but I want to get back to the point.
    After BP accepted the blame they got to work with their money through the news room paid commercials. The well was capped and within 12 days all the oil had ‘disappeared’. It was estimated at the time, about 1.3 million barrels, or so, gushed out of the Gulf floor; we were told I am positive it was a lot more than that but BP is charged for all the death and oil spilled in the water and ‘they’ accepted the blame.
    What happened next was CNN aired an Anderson 360 story by Anderson Cooper. It was about how retired general Thad Allen of the National Guard had suspended the first amendment and tacked on a $40,000 class D felony for any news station who got too close to oily birds or oil boons lying uselessly on the seashores. They kinda tried to imply that anyone who was caught taking photos would be fined this; but it didn’t stop the people. Also at the same time as this story aired all the tags, about BP’s oil well explosion, were removed from the CNN iReport site so no one could find the stories about the explosion and what people were talking about or experiencing down in the Gulf region affected by it.
    To be continued...
    Add your Story Add your Story