Spotting Propaganda, Disinformation, and Fraudulent Arguments on the Aleppo Front

Independent journalist Eva Barlett (fresh from a videotaped exchange in which she skewered a befuddled Norwegian Aftenposten journalist) was invited onto RT Live for a debate with Dilly Hussain, deputy editor of 5PillarsUK, about the situation in Syria, with a focus on Aleppo.

The debate was extraordinary for the professionalism of Bartlett and Hussain’s lack of dignity and professionalism, as well as poor moderation by the unnamed RT personality.

Why is Hussain unprofessional? Because he engaged in ad hominem attacks on Bartlett and also against the media outlet he was appearing on. He serially interrupted Bartlett while she presented her facts (and Bartlett, after pleading for the courtesy to make her points uninterrupted, finally — out of apparent exasperation — interrupted Hussain, albeit on far fewer occasions).

First, ad hominem should have no place in any discussion. It is irrelevant to the facts of the matter, and it should serve as a loud warning that the name caller has a poor grasp of the facts or, even worse, wishes to present a case he knows is contrary to the facts. Second, interrupting an opponent is not only extremely rude, but it is underhanded in that it serves as a device to throw off the opponent: causing a pause in the flow of an opponent’s argument, the loss of a train of thought, unnecessary repetition, or causing an unwary debater to become flummoxed and unfocused. These tactics of Hussain are rude, unethical, and speak poorly to his ability to persuade viewers with the command of his facts.

Early on Hussain cast aspersions at Bartlett and his host, RT:

It’s a shame that you brought Ms Barlett here who presents herself as a journalist. She’s neither independent and nor can she quantify or qualify as a journalist. She’s a grade A conspiracy theorist for the Assad and for the Russian regime.

Hussain does not state how Barlett lacks in quantity and quality to be a journalist. Hussain seems assured of his journalistic integrity since his bio tells of his NCTJ Certificate in Print Journalism in 2010. But what kind of journalist reveals an animus by berating a colleague, even if he refuses to recognize her as such? Moreover, if he lacks essential journalistic debating qualities, would his certificate have any substantive value?

The website, 5PillarsUK, where Hussain edits, claims to be independent:

We are financially independent and that means that we are editorially independent.

Everything so far has been financed from our own personal savings, reader donations and advertising.

… We do, however, aim to raise money for this site through advertising and through individual grants and donations which won’t impinge on our editorial freedom. [Italics added]

One wonders: how does accepting advertising money equate to financial independence? Academics Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in their Propaganda Model posited advertising revenues as creating a conflict of interest. It is conceivable, however, that 5PillarsUK only accepts advertising that would not impinge on their journalism.

Early on, Hussain tried to bulldoze the debate over Bartlett; the RT moderator had also interrupted Bartlett once and stood back and allowed one guest for too long to try imposing himself over the entire debate. When the moderator finally spoke up, Hussain objected. This was shameful. Does fair play and any semblance of etiquette go out the window because it is a TV debate? Do viewers not deserve to hear, undisturbed, the arguments put forth by all guests equally? 

Read more http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/12/spotting-propaganda-disinformation-and-fraudulent-arguments-on-the-aleppo-front/