Now, I listened to the whole interview, and I did not once hear him talk about 'open source' journalism. Instead, Pilger denies Douma's chemical attack ever happened, and complements Fisk for his report about Douma, since Fisk talked to a 'doctor' who told him nothing happened. Remember that was that 'doctor' who talked English very well, and was not present in the hospital at the time of the attack.
Pilger is right.
Right about what ? That the Douma attack never happened ? If so, how do you know ?
Let's go through this step by step :
Not everyone is up to seeing that. Oh well. Hersh, Fisk, Pilger and Chomsky are wonderful human beings who speak truth to power almost every time they open their mouths or write something down. Another million journalists like that the whole world would be a much better much safer enjoyable place to live.
I can see you really like these journalists.
Rather than "truth to power" (whatever that means), I'd much rather have a journalist (including reporters like Fisk) answer the basic 5 questions any good article should address :
When, where, what, who and (optionally) why.
It's true if the doctor says so that he wasn't inside the hospital when the filming occurred. That's what Fisk reported. he didn't make it up, he reported what the Doctor said. That's what honorable ethical journalists do. Those that do not are not credible.
You are assuming this guy was a doctor. And so did Fisk.
All we know is that there was a person there who spoke English well, and who was not present at the time, and he said it there was no chemical attack.
So he made an argument by authority, which we know is a logical fallacy.
Fisk knows that, and the fact that he did not tell his audience that is a yellow flag.
Be clear however, that doctor never said there was a (chemical) attack and many others who were there nearby have confirmed that as being the case. He was speaking about the hospital and the video. All is 'open source' information, so it's questionable why Bellingcat have not included that 'point of view' from known first hand witnesses in their non-stop 'reporting' about this issue.
Bellingcat does 'open source' journalism. They avoid witness reports because witnesses can be tainted, biased, under duress, inaccurate, incomplete, and just plain wrong.
Or they may not be witnesses at all, like this 'doctor'.
Besides this Rob, I believe there are several huge holes in the opinions/theory you believe about Fisk and doctors. I'll explain a few for the benefit of everyone here. That doctor spoke good english. What that means and why it is important for Fisk to state is there was little to no likelihood that Fisk misunderstood what he was saying and more importantly what precisely he meant. There was no translator intermediary. That's significant.
Right. Fisk would understand what this "doctor" said.
The doctor as reported worked in that very hospital.
You don't know that. You are just assuming that, since the "doctor" himself said so.
This means that first he spoke fluent Arabic. Not only could he hear what was being said in the video, but he also knew what the locals the staff and other doctors had told him in the preceding days before Fisk arrived.
You are just assuming that he "the locals the staff and other doctors had told him" anything.
Either way, it would be second-hand news.
Fisk was reporting what that Doctor knew as a result of being a hearsay witness of the events. Being a doctor there is a degree of default ethics and credibility in his story told to Fisk and Fisk properly recorded that for us to consider. His words carry some weight. I believe both of them but you and others for some unknown reason do not.
You don't know if he is a doctor, and he was NOT a witness.
So his words carry very little weight.
All we know is that he spoke English very well (at least that was Fisk's opinion).
Reading your past comments here it seems that you have never ever heard of Robert Fisk before this event. You also rubbished the wikipedia entry that reported on his multiple awards. Why anyone would do that based on an absence of accurate knowledge about Fisk is incredible. Because Robert Fisk would be the #1 western investigative journalist in the middle east for the last 40 years. His reputation for accuracy, honesty, credibility, ethics, reliability and truthfulness is without peer. Even Osama Bin laden knew him to be an honourable man who would not lie about anything. He was interviewed 3 times by Fisk. I assume you don't know that either. Because if you did I doubt you would have been so keen to insult his qualifications as an award winning journalist in the first place.
Now you are using the argument of authority again, this time for Fisk.
That is again a logical fallacy.
So the big question here is not how untrustworthy Robert Fisk's reporting is, the question is the credibility of your own personal opinions, beliefs and background knowledge of the ME in general and Syria in particular. You're no journalist Rob. Please try to keep that in mind. To put that in a humourous way Bellingcat isn't worthy to tie up Fisk's shoelaces.
That's cute, but no.
As I pointed out above, Fisk has nothing in this report. The only 'witness' he interviewed was not a witness, may not even be a doctor.
What is even more shocking is that Fisk did not visit the crime scene.
Bellingcat had geolocated the house where 34 dead people were found and there was a chlorine cylinder on the balcony.
Why did Fisk not go there ?
CBS did, and so did Swedish channel 4.
But not Fisk.
He just interviewed a guy who spoke English.
That's it.
Lastly, and this is really a good one. That doctor as reported accurately by Fisk said the 2 or 3 doctors who were on duty and present when the video/s were done were away. They were in fact enroute or already in the Netherlands for that OCPW meeting and press conference. For some unknown reason you dispute the reports by this doctor because he wasn't present. OK, fair enough on face value, you're a doubting Thomas. Nothing wrong with that principle.
Thank you.
I tend not to 'believe' anything until I see it.
And Bellingcat provided a LOT of evidence that you can actually look at.
Fisk provided NONE.
But here's the rub. Those doctors who were present did in fact confirm exactly what the doctor told Fisk. 2-3 days after the date Fisk filed his news report. Now given this information is 'open source' and out there in the wild, it begs the question why Rob doesn't already know this? It's been over a week at least.
How do you know that "Those doctors who were present" were the same ones that went to the OPCW meeting in The Hague ?
And why it is that Bellingcat that champion of accuracy and 'open source' analysis has not reported on what those Doctors those first hand credible ethical professional knowledgeable witnesses had to say about those videos taken while they were present in that very room?
Because Bellingcat does not rely on witness accounts.
And they don't because of the problems with witness accounts in general as I pointed out above.
Not to mention that these particular witnesses are under Syrian government control.
The people in that video were not suffering from a chlorine gas attack. They were all suffering from hypoxia having been underground in a tunnel / shelter when some bombing occurred. They were overcome with dust and a lack of air. eg “what you see are people suffering from hypoxia—not gas poisoning"
You don't know that.
Also, when reports of a chemical attack came in, it may very well be that these hospital workers took no chances and hosed down everybody.
Better be safe than sorry.
Khan Sheikhoun comes to mind.
That is why they were being washed down with water to remove excess "dust" to stop it getting worse, and is why they were being given Ventolin to help open up the air-ways in their lungs to help them breathe better.
Are you a doctor too now, like this guy who spoke English ?
What I saw in the videos were just as traumatizing for the children as the bombing was. They were scared out of their minds trying to breathe with screaming panicking adults all around them. This was obvious to me the first time I saw those videos. It was obvious to me immediately that what I was seeing had nothing to do with the proper treatment for a major chlorine gas attack that supposedly had killed hundreds of people.
Fatality numbers vary, but mostly between 40 and 85. Not 'hundreds'.
We know there were 34+ bodies in that house with the cylinder on the roof.
I don't feel it necessary to provide a link to those doctor witnesses confirming the Fisk report of what his Doctor said to him and why. A great test to see how effective 'Open Source' journalism can really be.
You still don't understand that 'open source' journalism does NOT rely on witness accounts ?
Maybe Bellingcat have published the correct up-to-date information since I last looked at their website yesterday.
They published a new article that shows that if even 1 % of the chlorine in that cylinder would have made it into the house, that it would be lethal to the people inside :
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/05/01/lethality-chlorine-gas-possible-explanation-high-casualties-deaths-following-april-7-2018-attacks-douma-syria/... some people go look at Mann's Hockey Stick graph and all they can see is lies and fraud. I think they are extremely Biased. They might possibly be deluding themselves but they are definitely not thinking straight or being rational about it. Happens a lot in my experience. So much for us being the smartest species on Earth. Go figure!
Yes. Some people look at the openly available video evidence that Bellingcat presented, and all they can see is lies and fraud. That there was no chemical attack and that we should trust the voices of authority from a self-proclaimed "doctor" who was not a witness, and the Syrian government.
All in a country that has scores 177 out of 180 in freedom of the press, in what "Reporters Without Borders" calls a "horrendous environment".
https://rsf.org/en/rankingIt looks like you made up your mind and you chose to believe the Syrian government authority narrative rather than the publicly available evidence that Bellingcat presented.