Propaganda, lies and videos: Russian media and the Khan Sheikhun massacre

Syrians inspect the rubble of damaged buildings hit by airstrikes in the town of Khan Sheikhun in rebel-held Idlib, Syria.
Updated 17 April 2017

Propaganda, lies and videos: Russian media and the Khan Sheikhun massacre

BEIRUT: In his comments of the latest chemical bombardment in northern Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin mocked what he descried as the “Western account” of what happened in Khan Sheikhun.
Referring to confirmations that civilians were targeted with chemical bombs by the regime of President Bashar Assad, the Russian president described this as no more than a “play.”
Putin’s statements are the latest propaganda pumped out by Russian media and allied media sources.
Beginning with the Russian military intervention in Syria in 2015, such propaganda and the Russian narrative has focused on the idea that all massacres are carried out by the “extremist” opposition, with no links made to the Syrian regime or Russian forces.
This propaganda reached an all-time high with the Khan Sheikhun massacre, both in terms of quantity and scope.
There is no mention of the testimonies of survivors, nor reports about Abdul Hamid Youssef, the Syrian father who lost his twin babies and 20 members of his family. There is also no mention of the documented history of massacres, bombings, and chemical attacks mentioned in international reports, the most recent of which was issued last month by Human Rights Watch.
There is only one story being amplified. Since 4 April, the day of the Khan Sheikhun attack that killed at least 87 civilians, including 31 children, Russian media, particularly Russia Today and Sputnik, have broadcast content almost daily that questions the root of the massacre or attributes the killing to the armed opposition.
For example, Russia Today posted reports attributed to Russian military analysts claiming that images of the town do not contain evidence of the use of live bombs containing chemical materials. It also carried an analytical piece about the timing of the bombing, and why such a bombing does not benefit Bashar Assad.
Of course, there was no mention about the identity of the “experts” cited, nor the evidence upon which they based their views.
Similarly, Sputnik broadcasted a report on one channel that claimed that the bases of the Syrian regime targeted by US missile strikes do not contain chemical materials. Again, there was no mention of evidence or documented analyzes; rather, just more pumping out of fake news.
The peak of news fabrication came in a broadcast by Sputnik, which claimed that the children who died in the Khan Sheikhun massacre were not killed by chemical weapons launched by the Syrian regime, but rather were killed by the civil defense volunteers known as the White Helmets.
The news was based on reports falsely attributed to Swedish doctors alleged to have said, according to a Russian site, that they “uncovered the deceit of the White Helmets.”
To trace back to the root of the story, Sputnik had published news on behalf of Veterans Today that was supposedly a translation of a report by the Swedish doctors.
Russian media, through Sputnik and Russia Today, spread the fake news extensively across all social media outlets and other media sources loyal to the Syrian regime, from Al-Alam to Al-Manar to Al-Maydan and other websites. All described the chemical massacre as an “act” produced by the White Helmets who, according to the Russian narrative, “did not rescue Syrian children but instead killed them in order to produce media images and videos that look more realistic.”
This series of fake reporting began with a lie that was circulated and republished to the extent that the original news got lost. Much of this propaganda in fact stems from one source, as it became evident that even sites that translated the news, such as the English site South Front are registered in Moscow.
The irony is that this fake news that has continued to spread, even after the Swedish organization attributed and linked to the report refuted it. In a published statement confirming that it analyzed some videos published the White Helmets, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights did not accuse them of killing children. In response to Russian allegations, it said “this rhetoric is inaccurate and does not represent our position on the mentioned case.”
Yet Russian media have insisted on exaggerating and distorting the false claims, rebroadcasting them in different formats on different sites loyal to Russian policy. All these outlets have continued to broadcast the build on the inaccurate version of the news, even after the organization issued its clarification.
Usually, a statement as clear as the one published by the Swedish organization and made available on its official website would end any debate around the issue. But this is not the case.
And this is an illustration of the extent to which Russian propaganda is based on spreading incorrect information, as it is quite easy to clarify or correct false news if there is the desire to.
However, the sites continue to publish the fake news, showing no interest in modifying the story. A Google search will show that the dissipation of this fake news is more than double that of real news attributed to the Swedish organization, but the statement of the organization only is evident and visible when visiting the official website or through some limited sites that broadcast the fake statement.
The White Helmets is one of the primary organizations that is being focused on and targeted by Russian and Syrian media, as well other media in a similar vein. This is because this organization, through its volunteers and videos that it broadcasts, has been able to reveal a lot of the crimes carried out by the Syrian regime and Russian air forces, thus making it the main target in the campaign attack.
When the documentary about the White Helmets won the Oscar several weeks ago, it was subject to criticism and doubt by the Russian and Syrian regimes and their media. Ultimately the stories of the organization’s volunteers allowed people around the world to feel the pain of the Syrian people and the heroism of these young volunteers in carrying out unimaginable rescue operations. Many of these volunteers paid the price with their lives, which is what makes the stories of the White Helmets among the most powerful of the Syrian War.
In reality, Russian media will not stop their attempts to label the White Helmets as propaganda for terrorism, which is the same rhetoric used by Bashar Assad in more than one interview and statement.
What is suspicious, however, is the faces that appear in these campaigns, such as that of Vanessa Beeley. She describes herself as an independent British journalist, but Google only displays her interviews with Russian or Syrian media.
According to Beeley, these White Helmets cannot be considered an independent organization because they represent the interests of Western countries that support Syrian opposition organizations. She claims it is strange that members of the White Helmets are always present in areas under the control of terrorists and organizations like Daesh or Al-Nusra Front, or loyal organizations. Of course, she fails to mention the truth that the civil defense is barred from working in regime areas.
Her Facebook page is also filled with images of her in Syria and in areas under the control of the regime. But in these images, she appears as though she is on a tourism trip. There are a number of pictures of Bashar Assad, as well as writings about her trips which essentially summarize the Syrian regime as a secular regime fighting terrorism and Western colonialism.
These examples presented are in essence are an attempt to undermine the humanity of victims of the massacre. Victims are used as collateral in a long propaganda film supervised by “terrorists” and the West, which has been repeated and broadcasting with the blessing of the Syrian regime.
However, the rise of Russian propaganda since the Kremlin began its military work is what gives these lies a more dangerous dimension. The enormous potential and vast financial investments in Russian propaganda has allowed it to spread so widely, in turn allowing such media to lift Russia out from darkness and propel its own interests.


US media questions Bezos hacking claims

Updated 25 January 2020

US media questions Bezos hacking claims

  • Experts said while hack “likely” occurred, investigation leaves too many “unanswered questions”
  • Specialists on Thursday said evidence was not strong enough to confirm

LONDON: An investigation into claims that the phone of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was hacked has been called into question by cybersecurity experts and several major US media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and the Associated Press (AP).

Specialists on Thursday said evidence from the privately commissioned probe by FTI Consulting is not strong enough for a definitive conclusion, nor does it confirm with certainty that his phone was actually compromised.

The Wall Street Journal reported, late on Friday: “Manhattan federal prosecutors have evidence indicating Jeff Bezos’ girlfriend provided text messages to her brother that he then sold to the National Enquirer for its article about the Amazon.com Inc. founder’s affair, according to people familiar with the matter.”

Experts said while a hack “likely” occurred, the investigation leaves too many “unanswered questions,” including how a hack happened or which spyware program was used, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

Steve Morgan, founder and editor-in-chief of New York-based Cybersecurity Ventures, said the probe makes “reasonable assumptions and speculations,” but does not claim 100 percent certainty or proof.

UK-based cybersecurity consultant Robert Pritchard said: “In some ways, the investigation is very incomplete … The conclusions they’ve drawn, I don’t think, are supported by the evidence. They veered off into conjecture.”

Alex Stamos, former chief security officer at Facebook, wrote that the FTI probe is filled with “circumstantial evidence but no smoking gun.”

Matt Suiche, a Dubai-based French entrepreneur and founder of cybersecurity firm Comae Technologies, told AP that the malicious file is presumably still on the hacked phone because the investigation shows a screenshot of it.

If the file had been deleted, he said the probe should have stated this or explained why it was not possible to retrieve it. “They’re not doing that. It shows poor quality of the investigation,” Suiche added.

Reports on Wednesday suggested that Saudi Arabia was involved in the phone of Bezos being hacked after he received a WhatsApp message sent from the personal account of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The Saudi Embassy in the US denied the allegations, describing them as “absurd.” Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan called the accusations “purely conjecture” and “absolutely silly,” saying if there was real evidence the Kingdom looked forward to seeing it.

A Wall Street Journal report quoted forensics specialists as saying the FTI investigation’s claims that Saudi Arabia was behind any possible hacking of the phone “appeared to forgo investigatory steps.”

CNN reported that critics of the probe highlighted a “lack of sophistication” in it, quoting Sarah Edwards, an instructor at the SANS Institute, as saying: “It does seem like (FTI) gave it a good try, but it seems they’re just not as knowledgeable in the mobile forensics realm as they could have been.”

The New York Times said the probe tried to find links between the possible hacking of the phone and an article in the National Enquirer about the Amazon CEO’s extramarital affair with Lauren Sanchez, but any link remains “elusive.”

National Enquirer owner American Media said in a statement regarding the source of the leak on Sanchez’s involvement with Bezos: “The single source of our reporting has been well documented, in September 2018 Michael Sanchez began providing all materials and information to our reporters. Any suggestion that a third party was involved in or in any way influenced our reporting is false.”