Thread by @bobfrombrockley

This ruling about the BBC’s brilliant Mayday series, prompted by a complaint by the Mail’s Peter H1tchens, has been receiving a lot of attention in the far right/conspiracist scene and Russian media. A short thread on why it’s actually a nothingburger…
bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/ma…

First, some background:
In April 2018, a rebel-held suburb of Damascus, Douma, was brutally bombed from the air by the government. Two chemical weapon incidents were reported. Dozens died. The next day the rebels surrendered.

This was just one of many chemical attacks in Syria. Think tank @GPPi investigated hundreds, almost all of them credibly attributed to Assad’s government. gppi.net/2019/02/17/the…

Douma was unusual as it got some attention in the west, which had been oblivious to most of the others. The US & allies, not waiting for OPCW confirmation of the CW attack, launched airstrikes on military targets (Trump notified Putin first). 9 Syrians were injured, none killed.

The Russian & Syrian government propaganda machine went into overdrive, trying to pick at loose threads in the Douma story, smearing the civil defence volunteers & doctors who gave evidence, intimidating witnesses, etc.
theguardian.com/world/2018/apr…
washingtonpost.com/world/middle_e…

(One of the bought into this disinformation campaign was the Mail on Sunday’s Peter H1tchens, ultra-conservative professional contrarian and COVID skeptic. He promoted an OPCW whistleblower, “Alex”, claiming the investigation which later confirmed the attacks was compromised.)

The BBC’s brilliant Intrigue:Mayday podcast series tells the story of the disinfo campaign, detailing how a group of pro-Russian activists & bloggers systematically undermined public understanding of the attack & its investigation. bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00…
brockley.blogspot.com/2020/11/intrig…

The BBC ruling doesn’t correct any of Mayday’s substantive reporting. It only concerns the episode about the Mail’s single source, “Alex”, an ex-OPCW employee who had been in Syria but wasn’t allowed to deploy to the site due to lack of training. Specially it ruled on 3 things:

1/ “Alex’s” motivation. Wikileaks put up a $100K reward for leaks relating to Douma. The BBC had evidence leading them to believe this might’ve been Alex’s motive, but they were wrong to imply it. (Note: the ruling *doesn’t* say this *wasn’t* part of his motive.)

2/ What “Alex” believed. This is really important. The BBC were wrong to suggest he thought the attack was “staged” (the claim his supporters, such as H1tchens, make). They’d already corrected this at his request. So this is a loss not a win for pushers of the staging theory.

3/ The journalists “Alex” worked with. The ECU says he worked with journalists who don’t share the Putin/Assad view. I think this is a matter of interpretation. It’s hard to tell the Mail on Sunday’s version from the Russia Today version, and Russian media have amplified H1tchens

Summing up: There’s **nothing** in this ruling to strengthen the idea that the Douma investigation has been targeted by a systematic disinformation campaign involving Russian state media and its useful idiots. Even their main source, “Alex”, doesn’t think the attack staged.

Like Holocaust denialists, Syria chemical weapons truthers want us to zoom in to irrelevant details about one attack, not zoom out to see the bigger picture: a decade of horrific aerial bombardments (some chemical, most “conventional”) on areas that refused regime sovereignty.

Unanswered questions: Did “Alex” (Brian Whelan) pocket the $100K bonus Wikileaks offered for anyone leaking from the OPCW? How did “Alex” hook up with the sympathetic journalists, including the Mail, he shared his story with?

See this thread for more:

Incidentally, we know from the emails of Paul McKeigue, a Syria truther who worked with Russia to promote the OPCW whistleblowers, that “Alex” (Brian Whelan) was in regular touch with Russian diplomats in Den Haag, where the OPCW is based.

See also my previous thread about Mayday, and the disinformation campaign it revealed:

Meanwhile, Peter H1tchens’ own work (his inaccurate claims about COVID) has been found inaccurate by the press watchdog…

Hilariously, when IPSO ruled that PH had told porkies about masks and COVID, he said he was only expressing opinions, not reporting facts. (I like the reply by @deadlyvices at the bottom of this screenshot.)

Talking of corrections, when I said above “Alex’s” real name is Brian is meant to say BRENDAN Whelan. (With apologies to the real @brianwhelanhack, who is an excellent journalist and had nothing to do with the Mail on Sunday!