These stories do not help strengthen the narrative that the regime wants to sell its supporters and the world. In the last few months, Bashar al-Assad seemed to realize that no news from his side is not necessarily good news. Perhaps in an effort to generate a more favorable narrative, a selective few have been granted access to Syria. These journalists, like Robert Fisk, Andrew Gilligan, and Nir Rosen, are vaguely not escorted, but not undercover. Their articles are branded as exclusive, unique, with unlimited access to all sides, commissioned to expose a radically different side of the revolution than what currently floods the regional and international media outlets which have been based on the steady stream of daily videos and eye-witness accounts.
Although these journalists vary in background and expertise, their accounts are similarly framed: focusing on the brewing, deadly sectarianism; proving the existence of an armed opposition; equalizing the regimes force with the peoples dissent; while casting the protesters narrative in a cloud of doubt. Fisks recent reportage reads as if he were speaking directly from the presidential palace, or humble, unguarded, largeish suburban bungalow, if you are to believe Gilligan. And surprisingly, Nir Rosens recent series for Al Jazeera English seems to suffer from the same regime-tainted myopia.
Rosen spent seven weeks this summer in Syria, touring Daraa, Damascus, Homs, Latakia, Hama and Aleppo, speaking as he says, to all sides. But from the first article entitled, The revolution will be weaponized, it is clear how heavily one-sided this series was designed to be. His focus on the deep, historical grievances of the Alawite (but not Sunni) sect and his endless comparisons of Syria to Iraq casts a distinct air of doom and hopelessness over every piece.
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3209/framing-syria
Yes, I listened to an interview with Robert Fisk on Al Jazeera, and there were at least 3 blatant lies.