When Questions Lead to Conflict

Does it lend to the credibility of a news organization if their representatives shy away from answering valid questions?

Shouldn't a journalist's main motivation be to report the truth, regardless of what it looks like?

Should we be suspicious of a news source who spends much of it's time and energy attacking others?

On March 21st this post from Sibel presented itself on my twitter feed:

Followed by the body of a tweet from whom Sibel said was Eva Bartlett, but the origin of the tweet was not included:

That tweet, read on it's own, sets a certain tone and provides a bit of insight into the author. But it's just an example of how context and situational awareness can change the meaning behind what we say. The tweet was a bit shocking. It's not common, possibly unheard of, to see something like that coming from Ms. Bartlett, so I asked a question:

Sibel, though she continued to defend that the source was Eva Bartlett, refused to provide proof. She ended up blocking me before I could capture her responses 😒 but here is the remainder of our exchange that led to said blockage (blocking people who question her seems to be a fairly common practice. See below)

Evidently Ms. Bartlett was paying attention to my exchange with Ms. Edmonds and decided to contact me privately on twitter to explain that, yes, the post was from her, but she provided the context that was curiously missing from Edmonds' public tweet:

This isn't the only rubble that's been tossed Eva's way from Sibel Edmonds and others from Newsbud
This business of journalism can become quite dirty when 'agendas', rather than 'spreading truth' becomes a motivation.

The behavior of the Newsbud organization suggests that it is just as focused on attempting to discredit other journalists as it is on what's happening in Syria.

While citizens are suffering, children are dying, families are being torn from their homes, buildings are crumbling, people are living in hellish circumstances, Newsbud and Sibel Edmonds seem to be more interested in engaging in a smear campaign against two independent journalists than they do in reporting the truth.

Is it time for unity in truth, yet?

With their combined efforts, Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley and organizations like Newsbud could promote true change for Syria and the people there, but these smear campaigns are diverting precious attention from an urgent situation.

When truth is overshadowed by agenda promotion and personal attacks, we all suffer.
I learned, from her decision to block me for asking valid questions (which is all I did) that Sibel Edmonds isn't purely interested in sharing truth, she's also interested in stifling others from finding it...and I'm not alone:

It also appears as though I'm not alone in my support for Ms. Bartlett

https://twitter.com/MacIntyreCheryl/status/978005987109064704
https://twitter.com/youngskwi/status/978052203360419840

A twitter search for Eva, Vanessa, or Newsbud will prove useful in reflecting how we are experiencing, in real time, information wars on a very large scale. It's difficult to discern who is being authentic and who is a tool for someone with an agenda, but answering the three questions at the beginning of this post may be a step in the direction to finding authenticity in our news.

My introduction to Ms. Bartlett:

For more on Eva Bartlett: https://ingaza.wordpress.com/about-me/

https://ingaza.wordpress.com/syria/syria-my-published-articles-from-and-on-syria-2014-2017/

https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/updates-from-on-the-ground-in-syria-june-to-august-11/

I'd also urge you to read this response: https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2018/01/20/a-personal-reply-to-the-fact-challenged-smears-of-terrorist-whitewashing-channel-4-snopes-and-la-presse/

Vanessa Beeley: https://twitter.com/VanessaBeeley

http://21stcenturywire.com

🤗