BBC podcast "Mayday" tries to repair the reputation of Syria's White Helmets & their late founder. It also tries to discredit the OPCW whistleblowers. It does so with glaring falsehoods & omissions. Host @chloehadj pledged to answer my Qs, but hasn't yet: thegrayzone.com/2020/11/30/que…
I have outlined here just some of the major falsehoods, leaps of logic, and omissions in @chloehadj's series. If the BBC stands by this reporting, then I expect that it will welcome the opportunity to answer my questions.
It would take several articles to document all of @chloehadj's journalistic lapses. Here are a few glaring ones:
.@chloehadj strongly, and falsely, insinuates that OPCW whistleblower "Alex" collected a $100,000 reward from Wikileaks for leaking information. She aired this innuendo without doing the minimal journalistic step: asking Wikileaks if it's true.
.@chloehadj's series has a huge conflict of interest. Her topic is the White Helmets (WH) & its late founder, James Le Mesurier (JLM). Her *researcher* is a longtime employee of UK gov't contractor ARK -- which branded the WH, marketed it, & employed JLM. She never mentions this.
.@chloehadj claims that the OPCW inspectors' concerns were addressed. Yet she omits multiple, critical facts, including: the censorship of the inspectors' initial report; the exclusion of toxicology experts; the sidelining of the inspectors who went to Syria.
Here is perhaps @chloehadj's most incredible omission: her own BBC colleague's reporting! @Dalatrm says the hospital scene -- where the White Helmets, Chloe's topic was active -- was "staged."
Yet Chloe, on a BBC podcast about the White Helmets & Douma, completely omits this:
Again, if @chloehadj manages to respond to my questions as she promised to, I will update this article with her answers.
One of the most bizarre aspects of @chloehadj's podcast is her use of "Leon", a purported OPCW source, to attempt to refute the whistleblowers. Chloe claims Leon "works for the OPCW." But it's unclear in what capacity & if Leon had any role in the Douma probe he's commenting on.
Leon uses the filler word "like" a lot, sounding like a young guy, not a veteran scientist. He refers to the Douma team as "They" -- suggesting he wasn't a member. And he recycles the same laughable claims as @bellingcat tried in their recent hoax. (thegrayzone.com/2020/10/28/dra…)
Weirdly, @chloehadj & "Leon" try to justify the infamous, unusual meeting between the Douma team & a US delegation in July 2018. US officials tried to convince the team that a chlorine attack happened. Inspectors were disturbed. "Leon" assures Chloe there's nothing to see here.
The irony here is that @chloehadj casts herself as a foe of state disinformation (in this case Russian & Syrian). Yet via her multiple omissions, falsehoods, & defense of US interference in an OPCW investigation, her podcast is an elaborate exercise in what she claims to oppose.
Update: The BBC has given me its "Response" to my questions. Here it is in full (personal info redacted):
1/ "There was no conflict of interest between the wider work of a freelance cameraman and the work he did for us as a researcher on this series."
2/ "This series is the result of thorough journalism and meets the BBC’s editorial standards. A number of your points are based on inaccurate interpretations of the contents of the series and we would suggest listening again for clarification."
3/ "As appropriate, we approached individuals where allegations were raised, inviting them as well as others to respond to what is reported in the programme. We stand by the investigation and our journalism." [end]
I replied with several follow-up questions, including a request for the BBC to identify the "inaccurate interpretations" (even just one) that it claims I made. I will update should they respond.
This "response" came from a BBC spokesperson. I still have not heard anything back from Mayday host/producer @chloehadj, who had previously committed to "answering something in writing." I look forward to those answers in writing.
I have updated this story with an observation that I didn't include in my questions to @chloehadj, but that I think is notable. Chloe's purported OPCW source, "Leon" sure likes to say "like" a lot. Does this sound to you like an experienced OPCW inspector, or a young man?
Here's the audio of that quote from "Leon"' -- it's an actor speaking, but @chloehadj says it's Leon's exact words.
Does he sound, like, credible?
Update: I have been in contact w/ @chloehadj, by phone & messaging, and can confidently deduce that she will not be answering any of my questions. Not one.
You can draw your own conclusions as to what that means. (I think she can't defend her reporting). thegrayzone.com/2020/11/30/que…
I hope @chloehadj proves me wrong on this, and answers the questions that I have laid out (with considerable effort, and in great detail).
.@chloehadj & @BBCRadio4 have yet to address the issues I raised w/ their reporting. Nor will they offer even one example of what they called my "inaccurate representations." (thegrayzone.com/2020/11/30/que…)
Here is their response, & then my 12/1 reply, which they haven't responded to:
Update: BBC Mayday host @chloehadj has gone from attacking the OPCW's Syria whistleblowers (& refusing to answer basic questions about her reporting thegrayzone.com/2020/11/30/que…) to simply pretending that these whistleblowers don't exist.
Missing from her account? The OPCW's own dissenting inspectors. Listen to how she erases them from the story:
In case this deliberate omission of the OCPW whistleblowers by @chloehadj wasn't obvious enough, she repeats it later on. Chloe attempts to attack a group of UK academics who have questioned Syria chemical allegations, while again failing to even mention the whistleblowers:
Irony is that the name of this episode with @chloehadj & @RSAMatthew is "When 'Fake News' Becomes Real." They purport to challenge state propaganda while in effect practicing it themselves, through a very classic tactic: erasing, or memory-holing, countervailing information.
-declined my request for an interview, claiming she was "burnt out" and was about to take leave. She did agree to answer questions in writing,
-Once I submitted those questions in writing, she refused to answer a single one, so we published them here: thegrayzone.com/2020/11/30/que…
-Now she reappears and gives a friendly interview defending her reporting while omitting any *mention* of the OPCW whistleblowers she attacked.
- Almost forgot: in this interview and in her podcast, @chloehadj also omitted any mention of her *own BBC colleague's reporting* that the hospital scene in Douma was staged -- by the White Helmets, the topic of her entire series. Pretty big omission too!
I wrote to @chloehadj today to ask her why, in an interview defending her OPCW/White Helmets reporting, she omitted any mention of the OPCW whistleblowers and her own BBC colleagues' damning findings. I don't expect a response to this one either.
*own BBC colleague's
Update: to the surprise of no one, @chloehadj has not responded to my latest questions about how she went from devoting an entire episode of her BBC podcast to attacking the OPCW whistleblowers... to now pretending they don’t exist, and erasing them from her account of the story.
I plan on writing about this latest iteration of @chloehadj’s curious journalistic approach to reporting the OPCW scandal, so if she does manage to respond I will be sure to include.
After somehow forgetting that the OPCW whistleblowers exist, @chloehadj is back to acknowledging them -- and back to distorting what they have said & omitting critical facts. In other words, this BBC "journalist" continues to be a UK state propagandist. bbc.com/news/stories-5…
In a lengthy article based on her whitewashing podcast series about the UK state-funded White Helmets, here's how @chloehadj summarizes the OPCW's Douma cover-up scandal:
Just as she did in her podcast, @chloehadj distorts the whistleblowers' claims and omits a number of countervailing facts. I pointed out the podcats' flaws in questions to her that she has never answered (thegrayzone.com/2020/11/30/que…), because she's a propagandist.
Grounds for OPCW whistleblowers rejecting final Douma report is not US pressure. They noted that US pressure happened. But reason they've reject the report is because of *science*. This is laid out, for example, in this April 2019 letter to OPCW chief: thegrayzone.com/wp-content/upl…
April 2019 letter raises concerns that @chloehadj consistently omits in her "reporting." Starts w/ fact that team's *original report* was doctored, & attempts were made to replace it with a bogus report that baselessly suggested Syrian gov't guilt. Chloe never mentions this. Why?
.@chloehadj also omits other inconvenient facts, including the suppression of toxicologists' conclusion that the observed symptoms were inconsistent w/ chlorine; the levels at which chemicals were found; and the fact that chemicals could have come from benign sources.
Because she can't refute the OPCW whistleblowers, @chloehadj not only excludes their concerns but now invents a new one.
This is a complete fabrication: "They questioned whether the limited amount of gas that had apparently been dropped would have killed people where they lay"
I challenge @chloehadj to show where whistleblowers said this. She won't be able to.
OPCW whistleblowers' argument is not based on the purported "limited amount of gas" -- it was about whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that chlorine gas was used in the first place!
This is is also a distortion: the engineering study was about more than "more damage"; but other factors including how a canister managed to crash through a roof, bounce off a floor, and land on a bed; ballistics; and the crater size versus the size of the cylinder.
In her podcast, @chloehadj spoke to an anonymous, purported OPCW source "Leon" who tried to dismiss the whistleblowers findings w/ laughable claims that I pointed out here (thegrayzone.com/2020/11/30/que…).
Now in her article, Chloe doesn't mention "Leon" at all. Why not? Where's Leon?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Guess who was an advisory board member for ZAKA, the scam Israeli "rescue" group that's spread fake Oct. 7th claims including beheaded babies, “mass rape”, and a fetus cut from its mother?
.@gettleman, lead author of the NYT article that weaponized sexual violence to baseless claim that "Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7th", is on the defensive -- and doubling down on his fraud. ()
In a new article, he attempts to rebut unspecified "critics" -- whom he tellingly never names or cites.
That's because if he actually acknowledged and linked to the debunking by @TheGrayzoneNews, @intifada, and @Mondoweiss of his scam "reporting," it would be obvious that he can't refute it.
.@gettleman faced a serious problem: He led his story with a slain Israeli woman, Gal Abdush, and claimed she was a "symbol" of Oct. 7th sexual violence. He even all but declared that she was raped.
But then Gal's sister, Miral Alter, called out @Gettleman as a fraud. She said that "there is no proof that there was rape" and accused @gettleman of misleading their family.
Playing damage control, @gettleman went back to Miral and tried to get her to back down. The result is more scumbag journalism.
In his initial article, @Gettleman prominently featured the claims of Yossi Landau, Southern Commander of the scandal-plagued ZAKA. (pic 1)
But Haaretz has already exposed Landau as a liar for falsely claiming that he saw burned babies and a fetus cut from a dead woman’s womb on October 7. ()
So now, in his new attempt to defend his original article, how does the NYT fraudster @Gettleman handle relying on the Zaka fraudster Landau? He simply pretends he doesn't exist.
According to @Gettleman, two of the people he interviewed who described witnessing sexual assault "have since come under intense scrutiny." (pic 2)
This allows @Gettleman to omit that Yossi Landau has also come under "intense scrutiny" -- and found to be a flat-out liar.
Memo to @gettleman and his NYT editors: you don't get to escape accountability for relying on fraudulent sources by suddenly omitting that you relied on them. That shows you're only doubling down on your fraud.archive.is/H6rAm
A major embarrassment for NYT's @gettleman
and his story on "How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence."
Gal Abdush is the Oct. 7th victim whose story leads and is featured throughout the NYT article. Her family is even featured as the cover image. NYT describes her as a "symbol" of Oct. 7th sexual violence.
But Abdush's sister says "there is no proof that there was rape." She also accuses the NYT of manipulating their family. They didn't know that she would be presented as a rape victim.
In other words, NYT weaponized both a dead woman and sexual violence to spread propaganda in the service of a genocide.
“So far, there was only one direct eyewitness testimony” — whose tale was outlandish and had zero evidence.
@noam_dworman Now we got two new purported male witnesses. One isn’t identified. The other happens to be an officer from an elite Israeli military unit.
@noam_dworman The head of Israel’s rape commission says “we will never know neither the numbers or the scope” of these alleged rapes. Why not? And why should I buy these claims if so?
“As a condition to enter Gaza under IDF air support, outlets have to submit all materials and footage to the Israeli military for review prior to publication. CNN has agreed to these terms....”
Your first clue that the Washington Post's new NordStream scoop -- which blames a senior Ukrainian intel officer for the bombing -- is yet another CIA cover story is in the second graf:
"...U.S. and Western officials have called" the NordStream bombings "a dangerous attack on Europe’s energy infrastructure."
No, top US officials -- namely Blinken and Nuland -- have openly celebrated the NordStream bombings as a "tremendous strategic opportunity" that they're "very gratified" by.
()
()