The thing I have a really difficult thing understating is, if these journalists really believe their narrative, why engage in this kind of dishonesty
Hear Isobel brush over/totally ignore the the data issues, and compare the full recording to her article
Hear Isobel brush over/totally ignore the the data issues, and compare the full recording to her article
The article was supposed to find out about those who push back against the West's narrative on Xinjiang and who encourage people to expect more than problematic/mathematically flawed data to support their beliefs. Isobel completely left out Carl's explanation for his major motive
Carl responded to Isobel multiple times every time she tried to call him a supporter of the Chinese government. Despite the countless times she was corrected, the article still ran with Carl being called a Pro-Beijing influencer.
Isobel knew very clearly that Carl said he was in contact with Uyghurs on the ground in 2017, because she even repeated it back. There was a sound of disappointment when it wasn't in 2015 like she erroneously thought, but she still decided to run with the 2015 number anyway.
End note: Isobel took offence at the idea people can be compromised when it's funded by organizations perceived as nefarious
Isobel promoted a Lockheed Martin funded Uyghur's tweet in her article, she's received a prize from regime change funded orgs and Coda works with them too
Isobel promoted a Lockheed Martin funded Uyghur's tweet in her article, she's received a prize from regime change funded orgs and Coda works with them too
Finished watching the actual interview with Jerry who was incredibly insightful and well spoken, doing a great job of not only explaining why there's serious flaws with the Xinjiang narrative in general, but also with her's specifically, yet she paints Jerry as the silly shill.
Isobel tried to discredit Carl for not speaking with Uyghurs for 5 years (which was false), but gave no extra credit to Jerry for having been on the ground last year, cycling across the province speaking to ordinary people and didn't publish any of his personal interactions.
This was probably the strangest question of the entire interview.
This was pretty deep into the conversation. At this point it's pretty clear she made up her mind long before the interview what Jerry was and nothing he said was gonna change that.
Check out how Isobel totally and very deliberately left out Jerry's main answer to this question. There is no trace of this answer in her article whatsoever.
If dictionaries had video, this one would be filed under "overestimation".
The truth is that Isobel Cockerell wasn't doing journalism, she wasn't there to listen, and she knew exactly what she wanted to write. And no matter what her interviewees had to say, it was going to make absolutely no impact on her predetermined conclusions.
Suddenly it's starting to make a lot more sense.
It's probably worth also noting that Coda's website has not listed the NED as one of their supporters on their website.
ned.org/region/eurasia…
It's probably worth also noting that Coda's website has not listed the NED as one of their supporters on their website.
ned.org/region/eurasia…
Well... That didn't sound very honest...
You can watch Jerry's @Jerry_grey2002 full interview here. When you see for yourself how valid concerns, observations and well researched criticisms are distilled down to work against him, you can begin to imagine how the rest of the XJ narrative is formed
Refusing a call, Xi Fan accurately predicted Isobel would misrepresent her guests
Xi Fan still made it into her hit piece
Carl's conversations with Uyghurs a few yrs ago, Jerry on the ground last yr, and even Xi Fan growing up in Xinjiang meant nothing
Xi Fan still made it into her hit piece
Carl's conversations with Uyghurs a few yrs ago, Jerry on the ground last yr, and even Xi Fan growing up in Xinjiang meant nothing
