The political influence on the major media naturally affects their reporting. Influence is motivated by Creative will, and within the framework of powerful systems it seeks to draw a reality that is conducive to the desired, future reality. The bursting Turkish great power dreams in northern Syria have produced a whole series of interesting consequences.
With their reporting, the mass media try to reach every single person. To the extent that emotions are addressed in them, which in turn provoke certain reactions or even non-reactions. Basically, there is nothing wrong with that. In daily life we do this all the time. We are looking for attention, compassion, admiration, adoration and affection.
Occasionally we wish the opposite. So, when we humans are unsympathetic. Then we ourselves send signals, which in turn should make us appear unsympathetic. Simply so that we have our peace of mind in front of the psychological mirror that is held against us in such situations. Yes, and sometimes we talk badly about third parties for the same reason.
All this is normal. We communicate through emotions. This already shows how great the challenge for the media is to report objectively. Actually, this is not possible. Opinion formation by mass media is actually inevitable. Especially when they reach our brains with their messages over a large part of our time of life and above all experience.
Behind mass media is influence. Your reports are a processed discharge. People working for the media themselves also have an influence on what they report. The more you are aware of this, the greater your ability to influence. Mass media without external influence cannot exist in the world as we know it. Their own existence requires influence and this is economic, political and also ideological. That is why mass media are dependent. This is simply a fact and not a condemnation.
So if big media spreads certain messages and others don’t, then that has to do with the influence exerted on them, which transports the goals of the influencers. Although every Medium also has its" playground", in which it can live out freedoms and does not feel the influence. But even the" playground " is not possible without the influencers. Bringing certain information to the man or woman is therefore mandatory in such a dependency relationship.
Anyone who not only consumes the information of the mass media, but carefully analyzes it, can work out a whole lot with just derived knowledge from the content, the way and the sources of a message.
Reuters ear in the Bundestag
A report by the German division of Reuters started with this headline:
Merkel wants protection zone for refugees in Idlib province.
” Protection zones " have been repeatedly demanded by politicians of the states at war with Syria almost since the beginning of the conflicts. Most recently, the current German minister of war Annegret Kramp-Karrenberger (AKK) campaigned for this in late autumn last year. Let us not dwell further on the flimsy arguments put forward for this. But regarding the headline of the Reuters report, we should not accept it so easily. Does Merkel really want a protection zone in Idlib? Or is it pushing for a protection zone for refugees currently in Idlib province? You mean that is “crumb pooping”?
Reuters continues :
Berlin (Reuters) - in view of the situation of refugees in northern Syria, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is calling for a security zone in the Idlib region.
The first impression that can affect us is that the headline is repeated. But it does not. Quite apart from the fact that the statement of the headline is not clear. Is it an oversight? In the headline we read about the province of Idlib, in the following paragraph about the region of Idlib. The region of Idlib is more extensive than the administratively clearly defined province of Idlib. Can something sway US? Let’s continue in the Reuters report:
This is necessary in order to get the serious humanitarian situation for the people in the Region under control, Merkel said on Tuesday, according to information from Reuters from participants in the CDU/CSU parliamentary group.
“Serious humanitarian situation “is important, important for the sedated media consumer, so that he no longer considers or even questions the other and only asks:“yes, we must help”. So this is Propaganda, nothing new, quite normal. However, we — at least me-assume that the message intentionally addresses emotions. These should lead to an adapted public opinion.
In the just quoted there are two important factual information: a date and a"source”.
However, this” source " is rather diffuse. It reports “according to information from Reuters from participants in the CDU / CSU parliamentary group”. Why is this so spongy? Well, the Informant is assured not to be exposed. That would be one possibility, but there is another one and that may well join the first one. Angela Merkel can announce at any time that she has not said such a thing. The German Chancellor is also secured in case the test balloon backfires.
Which test balloon that is, we work out right away. First of all, however, we can state at this point that the Reuters report is constructed in such a way that neither the source is located nor the transmitted content is cemented. In this sense, it is something like a rumor — also and above all spread in order to inform certain addressees about changed views and changed intentions.
In retrospect, we can see that the “advance” of AKK in autumn 2019, when it brought the “protection zones” into play in Syria, was also very well coordinated. Again the Reuters report:
With the security zone, Merkel took up a proposal previously made by Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer to protect and provide for the Syrian refugees. The CDU leader said at the meeting that it would have been good if the international community had established such a security zone.
As they say: “you never know what it might be good for.“Or:” God’s mills — that is, the Christian Democrats — grind slowly, but they grind.“Again comes the Argument for the brainwashed:” [ … ] to protect and care for the Syrian refugees”, while the same people are trying to strangle Syria and no hospital in Syria has even close enough doctors available. Well, they are now in Germany and Germany is making “sacrifices” by passing a “skilled worker immigration law” that distinguishes between valuable and not so valuable refugees.
But let’s go further in the Reuters report and now it gets really interesting:
Merkel did not plead in the meeting, however, for the controversial, Turkey-occupied Zone in northern Syria to be declared a security zone, was stressed.
“Yes, yes,” the media consumer wrapped up in Propaganda will exclaim exhausted. “It doesn’t matter where, the main thing is to help the poor people.“However, we know that this is not about help at all. But what does Reuters tell us? The chancellor is said to have made an explicit plea and it was explicitly stressed: not to declare the disputed zone occupied by Turkey in northern Syria a security zone.
There are two questions again: what is meant by” disputed " on the one hand, and Where Should this security zone lie on the other. So: which zone occupied by Turkey in northern Syria is not controversial? Let’s take a look at the following map:
Green is the area of Idlib province occupied primarily by the Al-Qaeda offshoot Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS, formerly Jabhat al-Nusra). Marked Violet are the territories in Raqqa and Hasakah annexed by Turkey together with other Islamist groups. Without much imagination, it can be seen that Turkey is trying to permanently install a “buffer zone” and thus gain land at the expense of its southern neighbor.
The true nature of the " protection zones”
We can assume that “disputed” definitely involves the province of Idlib in the northwest. This is the province in which Turkey is currently using massive efforts to maintain its captured protectorate. As I said, This was clearly emphasized in that CDU faction meeting and in addition, it was also wanted to penetrate to the outside and to be disseminated via a worldwide operating news agency. Turkey will not like this!
If there are no" protection zones “in Idlib, then no arguments can be built on them that oblige the community of values to defend these areas from” Assad’s troops". The German government is very careful not to change roles. So far, Turkey and Arab oil monarchies have done the dirty work for the value vest in Syria. In this way, he could always remain beautifully in the background and complacently wave the flag of democracy and Human Rights.
Not only Germany has written off Idlib. However, Idlib was the most valuable prey in the context of the intended Turkish land grab of Syrian territory, and under the hand of the partners with Western values had probably also offered it as a fillet in the division of Syria.
That was what it was all about: the destruction of Syria and its reorganization in half a dozen of dependent pseudo-state entities.
The Islamic State and various caliphates would have found their place there. For Syria itself, at most, a residual state had been planned in the very west of the country. These are not fantasies at all, but long-known, hard-hitting plans from the think tanks of the designing hegemonist.
Now Turkey is extremely sniffed, because Idlib had already booked it for himself. Months ago, the official Syrian currency was abolished there, curricula were changed to the Turkish models, and Islamists were made to enjoy the service of the weapon with House and yard in Idlib, for which Western states gave abundant “aid money”. In this context forced relocations have been carried out on a large scale for some time.
For Turkey, Idlib has long been “their Idlib”, that they should give back now. Idlib had in fact been promised to them. Their entire war was based primarily on the enticing loot of Idlib, after Aleppo had already been “lost"by the end of 2016.
And now not only Germany is telling the Turks something like this:
Sorry, bad luck. Watch how you get along. So far, we have also been able to play with the muscles of the media in order to put the ‘butcher Assad’ in his place. However, we are currently finding that the investments in the Regime Change project in Syria must be written off. The Big Brother on the other side of the Big Pond has also signaled that he doesn’t want to tear anything in Syria militarily. Of course, this also abruptly changes all values-Western ideas of the German-led European Union for the pacification of the new Middle East.
To this day, the Turkish power elites have acted exactly as they wished. But now the vest of values signals to them that above all they should shoulder the consequences of the disastrous policy pursued with it. Real partnerships look different.
One offers these days of Turkey from federal German circles to make themselves strong for a” protection zone". The fact that this is no longer an option for Idlib has already been discussed. So where should it be established — on Turkish or Syrian soil? At this point, the strong suspicion germinates in me that Turkey is being held back by the next carrot, which brings us to the Idlib region. In the broadest sense, this includes the northeastern province of Afrin. Would turkey benefit?
We must be clear that" protection zone " is an Orwellian term. Turkey does not need a protection zone in the sense of the word.
What they need is supervision of the “international community” about this “protection zone”, and thus, it is clear that this is again planned on Syrian territory. Ideally, Turkey would have liked to do this in conjunction with a no-fly zone, as it did ten years ago in Libya. Such supervision would consolidate the occupation of Turkey over the corresponding territory and prevent Syria from regaining sovereignty over that territory. So from Berlin one promotes the great Osmanic dreams in Ankara, which include the Illusion that one might be able to “keep” Afrin. This will not work and it is dishonest, because the government in Berlin knows that.
The German Chancellor chooses her words very carefully. She leaves the offensive presentation of alleged solutions" to help the poor people" to the transatlantic AKK, who, however, has in turn rowed back and no longer considers a military variant enforceable:
It is more likely that there will be a protection zone in which the United Nations (UN), the organization for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and humanitarian organizations will provide care for the people.
These are nothing more than air bubbles. But something has to be offered to Turkey so that it does not completely grasp the feeling of being cheated and suddenly and completely leaves the “partnership” with the European Union. Where should she go, with the many thousands of militants — including their followers — who have been bred with and through Turkey in almost ten years? That’s what it’s all about at the moment: the takeover of the “legacy” of a murderous war against a UN member state is now being haggled over.
The EU will once again offer Turkey a lot of money to keep it on track, and certainly money will also flow. Just so much that the as" Partner " does not get out. But the trade fairs are read — and Angela Merkel is by no means a flawless transatlantic. She has a feeling for power constellations and tests within them to what extent possibilities for the development of her own power interests are feasible. Reuters reports in its report:
In the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Merkel has further stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin does not want a four-day summit with French President Emmanuel Macron and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Reuters learned. She had repeatedly confirmed her readiness for such a meeting.
The message that can be recognized is:
We are ready to discuss Syria with the Russian President. We repeat this offer. We recognize that if we continue to try to exclude Russia from a search for a solution for Syria, we will no longer play a role there in the future. We acknowledge that we are aware of Russia’s interests in Syria.
This is all the more striking when one considers the following: interestingly, the USA does not play a role in this statement. But isn’t that a bit far-fetched? Rather not if you read how the Reuters news continues. May we trust our eyes? Is that what the German head of government actually said?
Merkel criticized the Syria policy of the West according to the data. It had been shown that a change of government initiated from outside was not possible. The war had only led to radicalization.
Angela Merkel can row back at any time and claim that these words have been put into her mouth. Therefore, she also criticized “according to the information”. Clearly, the feelers are stretched out here and the reactions are awaited. But the meaning of the statement is even more serious:
The German government indirectly admits that the Syrian war is not a civil war, but a covert Intervention for a violent overthrow of the government of this Middle Eastern country, which the West is seeking.
Shortly before the door for Germany finally closed, its leadership dropped its pants and tried to get another leg in the door.
This is a Signal in really many directions: to Russia, Syria, Turkey and, of course, the various political forces in their own country. Also the following sounds mighty unusual, if one assumes as Source Angela Merkel:
Erdogan has said several times that he is satisfied with the European and international help for his country. The situation is now complicated because Russia and the Syrian army acted together. Turkey had the task of disarming Islamist fighters. This could hardly be achieved.
The German government is under duress. As dangerous and bloody as the current Turkish policy is, it forces the EU to fundamentally rethink its actions so far. “The situation is now complicated” can also be interpreted psychologically. It has become complicated for the EU and thus for Germany. Something else amazes the Observer, extracted from the above quote:
Turkey had the task of disarming Islamist fighters. This could hardly be achieved.
Whatever listening Media or transatlantic speakers may sound, it recognizes that the military operation that Syria is conducting in alliance with Russia against the Islamists is justified. Regardless of this, the Mainstream is slowly coming out with the truth. So it looks like a, Unfortunately much too slow process of rethinking has started.
Pragmatism, morality, and filter bubbles
It is interesting to see how the established conservative parties CDU / CSU with their offspring AfD fall into each other’s arms again in practical politics. While foreign policy is being lapped up, hard bandages are being put in place to deter refugees from Turkey from entering the EU via Greece. A real discussion about the causes of the growing army of the Uprooted is therefore far from taking place.
This also does not take place among the “morally pure”, Who again vehemently demand an opening of the borders. The greens, in particular, were the greatest aggressors in the Syrian war and to this day maintain their overbearing view that one has every right to enforce democracy in distant countries by force. They are also the front-line fighters in Russia-Bashing and have no better political ideas than demands for further sanctions against this country.
Reuters is regarded as trustworthy in the Mainstream and a piece of information from the CDU leadership is gladly received and used. The way of exploitation, however, is more than revealing. Because, whether already pre — filtered by the dpa as a second user or bought and processed by the media themselves, they agreed in one aspect-quite as if they were aligned: t-Online, n-tv, Welt, Tagesspiegel, Süddeutsche, Merkur and whatever they might be called, “overlooked” something.
They simply left out an extraordinarily significant and by no means readable part of the Reuters news. He was repeated again at the end:
Merkel criticized the Syria policy of the West according to the data. It turned out that a change of government initiated from outside [in Syria] was not possible. The war had only led to radicalization. [ … ] Turkey had the task of disarming Islamist fighters. This could hardly be achieved.
To “overlook” this is indicative of the way in which we deal with emerging dissonance in the editorial offices of opinion sovereignty.