My previous article on Pearson Sharp's exclusive on-the-ground reporting from Syria was largely well received and racked up over 8,000 views on Steemit. While it was indeed warmly received, I want to respond to some specific criticism.
I knew this would happen, and it certainly didn't take long, for readers and outlets alike to begin criticizing Pearson's reporting because his network, One America News, is historically pro-Trump and quite conservative. It is a valid point to make, though I am left to assume that these complaints largely originate from people who [unsurprisingly] didn't actually read the article in it's entirety or watch any of Pearson's reporting in question.
But regardless of that fact, I want to clear up this issue, because it's important.
Going into writing the aforementioned summary of Pearson’s reporting, I knew full well what OAN was. In no way does my knowledge of OAN stop me from watching and deciding for myself if the information presented is worth viewing and sharing. We are often too quick to shrug off information when it comes from a source we don’t agree with or is unfamiliar, all the while trusting familiar sources wholeheartedly even when we know that much of corporate media has been compromised.
While I disagree with nearly everything I have seen presented by OAN, this particular topic, at this at this particular point in the game, appears to be unbiased, basic reporting. But, like I said in the article, it is up to each of us to decide for ourselves and to not listen solely to one angle. Telling me or others that we shouldn't listen to OAN when it comes to any topic ever is shutting out one angle.
What we need now more than ever is unity. I'm sure you know this. If Rachel Maddow visited Douma and discovered that the chemical attack appeared to be faked and reported basic information about it while on the ground, should we ignore it because we don’t like Rachel Maddow? Like many people recently experienced with Tucker Carlson, sometimes the “other side” can speak some truth and it would be appropriate for us to be supportive of that. After all, not only is there a chance that we might learn something, but an audience that you largely disagree with, an audience in need of some truth, is being exposed to it. That's important.
As Pearson himself briefly mentioned on Twitter on Wednesday, Think Progress is attacking and attempting to discredit his work.
Think Progress informs us that "the Twitter feed for the Russian embassy in South Africa, one of Moscow’s most prominent Twitter accounts, promoted OANN’s findings." This tidbit of information is certainly not news and shouldn't be a shock nor evidence of any ill intent by either party. Russia continues to standby their assertion that the chemical attack did not take place. Personally, I tweet things that are in line with my thinking. I have a feeling I'm not alone in that.
In a separate article, Think Progress appears to tout the fact that OAN is a far-right network, as if that should discredit Pearson's reports. I wonder, if the tables were turned, would Think Progress find it fair and reasonable for conservative Americans to brush off and attempt to discredit their exclusive on-the-ground investigation? Think Progress goes on to say "OANN and Sharp’s reporting falls short in many respects." Could someone please point me in the direction of Think Progress' on-the-ground reporting from Syria? I would love to take a look.
My article is most certainly not saying we should become regular consumers of the One American News Network. That is entirely up to you. The article is simply drawing attention to an American journalist who happens to be on the ground in Syria at this exact moment, something that most corporate journalists would never dream of doing. To me, and thousands of others, it seems like something we should pay attention to.
We have to take what we can get when it comes to reporting from places like Syria. And we have to cross reference what we get against other reports. In doing that, Pearson’s reporting, thus far, appears be in line with others on-the-ground or with on-the-ground experience in the area, including Robert Fisk who has reported on the situation for The Independent.
When we’re able to consume reporting from sources with opposite ideologies and accept that they’re coming to similar conclusions, we come out on top and are able to rise above the divisions that the political spectrum forces upon us. In my opinion, that is what independent journalism is for. It saddens me that outlets and consumers who claim to be independent and unbiased close their minds and use their platforms in an attempt to discredit people who are seeking the truth.
Imagine with me for a moment that you're in Syria. Maybe you're well traveled, maybe you're not. Either way, close your eyes and picture a time that you were in an unfamiliar foreign country or a place where you felt you didn't belong. Now imagine you haven't been there long, you've probably got jet lag and you're low on sleep. You tuck yourself in for your first night far far away from home in a bed that doesn't feel like your own, in a room full of air that sits on your skin in a way you haven't felt before, surrounded by smells that smell different for reasons you can't quite pinpoint. As you drift off to sleep you're suddenly shaken awake by loud, unfamiliar sounds. You can't ignore them so you get out of bed. Your brain does what brains do and searches for something to attribute these sounds to, something familiar that will illicit a familiar response. Someone tossing a suitcase in the next room - that must be it. But why? As your thoughts awaken your body further you realize what you're hearing isn't a suitcase. You remember where you are. And it dawns on you - what you hear are explosions in the distance. How do you feel? Do you panic? Are you afraid for your life? Are you confused? It must be distant firing from rebel forces in the area. You grab your phone and search for answers. And then you see it: The United States, your home, is bombing the country you're visiting. Right now. With you in it. You can see the bombs. You can smell them. How does that make you feel? You begin searching for answers. You talk to locals. All the while you're worried for your safety in the back of your mind. Are you thinking about your political ideology? I'm not.
Pearson is there. He hasn't hid in fear for his life or attempted to flee. He didn't sit on the story, worrying about what you might say in response. He reported it.
Sharp's most recent report from Syria was released Wednesday night. He addresses criticisms of his interviewees being plants orchestrated by Assad. Watch for yourself.
"Not one person has said they know anyone who is sick, anyone who was attacked, they never smelled anything, they never heard anything, and, right now, there is no evidence whatsoever. So, again, that's not definitive proof, but there's also no proof that it even happened."
Pearson said it himself. He is crowd sourcing information and passing it on to viewers who are free to come to their own conclusions. He is not claiming to have proof but is simply showing us what evidence he has found. He is not propping up the conspiracy theory that Assad gassed his own people and invited foreign journalists in, only to plant people are the city to give scripted responses nor is he telling you that the U.S. did, in fact, fake this attack.
The least we can do is listen to Pearson's reports, apart from what OAN is, and not try to discredit is name. This may the only glimpse we get out of Douma. Do you want to be responsible for tarnishing it and helping the U.S. war machine win? Most of us are on the same team. We should act more like it.
We have a pro-Trump network from the United States seemingly coming to the conclusion that the chemical attack did not take place. We have a British journalist doing the same. An Agence France-Presse journalist filmed a Syrian student at Douma's hospital who claims there were no chemical attack victims. I find it significant that we now have news coming straight out of Syria from all three countries involved in the missile strike and they all appear to be uncovering the same thing.
I don't know about you, but I'm going to listen to whoever is in Syria right now because, after all, I am not there. Like I said before, it is on each one of us to come to a conclusion on our own, "not because mainstream media or independent media tells you so, but because you were able to deduce a conclusion on your own."
This post is Creative Commons.
Find me on…
Steemit → steemit.com/@emmafiala
Patreon → patreon.com/emmafiala
MintPress News → mintpressnews.com/author/emma-fiala
Instagram → instagram.com/frostonflower
Facebook → facebook.com/emma.fiala.7
Twitter → twitter.com/bymyelf
My website → frostonflower.com