Thanks to the age of information, you can get a very good glimpse of a journalist’s ethics and general adherence to their organisation’s code of conduct. Or lack of adherence in the case I’m about to present. A few weeks ago, I offered one particular journalist (Jess Hill from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, herein the ABC), an exclusive report on Syria and the social media war that is ongoing. The offer was “intercepted” by a paid-shill telling her not to talk to me and another Syrian on twitter.
That wasn’t too shocking, we’re used to these people monitoring every single tweet we make and providing an automatic response to undermine it. What WAS shocking, was Jess Hill’s response!
It took me a while to recover from the shock of a journalist saying that they’re not only ignoring but studiously ignoring me. Given the topic of Syria and the drummed up propaganda by @nouralhidaya and her gang of cyber-thugs, I quickly flicked through several UN General assembly resolutions regarding such one-sided behaviour. OK maybe I’m a little bit lazy but someone from Voltaire network did so for us here:
Resolution 110 of 3 November 1947 regarding “measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war,” condemns “propaganda which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. ”
Resolution 381 of 17 November 1950 further strengthens this condemnation by condemning the censorship of conflicting information as part of the propaganda against peace.
So getting back to Jess, I offered her my exclusive report again and all I got back was the following tweets:
“Obnoxious tweets” indeed. Note also her connotation that any person that contradicts her reporting is “state approved”. Enough was enough, I happen to know quite a few people in Australia who also know the rules at the ABC and she’s definitely been breaking them. This is not really the only case here, she’s been caught before so we had hoped this would be the straw that broke the camel’s back. We HAD hoped she would show some impartiality but no, her biased reporting persisted and we had no choice but to file a complaint with the ABC. It took many hours of volunteer work to make sure the complaint was both valid and comprehensive, I did not even take part in this but I provided all the information I could.
When I independently got confirmation that the paperwork was in the ABC’s hands and was being reviewed, I sent an alert to her on twitter with my usual “obnoxious” tone, to use her terminology:
So moved she was by what I wrote that she just had to retweet it — and there I thought she was studiously ignoring me, I guess it’s just a case of selective hearing with her in this instance. Who knows just how selective she has been in her overall coverage of Syria!
It gets better, just bear with me. Here is how she framed my above message:
Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Not only was she “threatened”, it was done so publicly and now I am followed by the account that REPRESENT the Syrian electronic army. She forgot to mention that the same account follows teenage Syrian girls who live in Canada. Ominous indeed. You’d think there are special agents following her around by now!
I did say it gets better though, remember what I said about selective hearing?
She was going to ignore it, like all the evidence she ignored contradicting the false narrative she promoted, in violation of several UN resolutions. Indeed, we have an admission right here that not only does she ignore contradicting evidence, but she is actively character assassinating people who give such evidence! She completely took my tweet informing her that her employer (the ABC) has been alerted about her misconduct out of context. Instead, she appealed to her legion of followers and thugs to spam my account with threatening messages. Indeed, it took me the entire morning to work through each of their messages. They even “comforted” her:
In fact, you can only be fearless in Australia if you obey the law and the rules of your employers, otherwise you can get into a lot of trouble because they take these matters very seriously. Jess Hill understands this, which is why the only option left for her is to make it seem like I’m threatening her and then get her legion to attack (or possibly kill) me:
That’s right, a self-confessed (thus sloppy by definition) Mossad agent has been alerted by Jess Hill to terminate yours truly. Ignoring anti-anti-Syrian government protesters is not enough for her, she has to get assassins to silence them as well so no one else can hear them. So while she gets to remain fearless, we have be fearful for our lives and the lives of our families when Jess Hill sends the Mossad after them.
Well, of course the previous two sentences were for dramatic purposes but you know, this is precisely the same thing Jess Hill is doing, consciously. She knows she’s in the wrong and she has been caught by MediaWatch previously, so a second strike might put her OUT of employment. That’s why this charade continues.
In fact, I made no such threat, just informed her, literally: “The paperwork of your false reporting and bias regarding Syria will eventually catch up with you”. You can call up the ABC and ask them to confirm, if they can and they will tell you that indeed, there is paperwork in their hands detailing her poor conduct. My encounter with her is simply the tip of the icerberg, but it reveals her psychology perfectly. In a way, being on twitter is not ideal for journalists, it allows the public to contact them and connects them with people they’d rather not listen to.
But Jess Hill, in her internal self-reflection, rejects the image that she herself promotes and claims:
Plenty of room for debate, except if you’re on the other side. Plenty of room indeed. Many factions, except the ones I want to ignore. Many rumours, which I actively promote, such as the Latakia shelling that never happened or the destruction of Hama which only happened on twitter.
The most aggravating thing is how she wants to claim I am being disrespectful, when it is her callous behaviour which is disrespectful not only to myself, but my entire country and people. Jess Hill’s selective hearing is essentially racist she only wants to hear the narrative of those who would promote the Anglo-American agenda of destroying one middle eastern country after the other. She assumes (admittedly) that every person who is against these fake protests is either pro-government or works for the government. She is not even willing to listen, she’s made up her mind and that’s that.
Well, that’s not quite that. This report and more will also be handed to her employer. Her shameful behaviour will catch up with her eventually. Maybe not on Syria. Maybe not this decade, but as long as people like you and I hold journalists up to at least a modicum of accountability, they will maybe, just maybe, one day, stop lying through omission.
The following permanent links are some of the remaining messages to me which have not been deleted.
I am taking all of these threats and attacks seriously, as well as Jess Hill’s allegations. Should harm come to my family in Syria as a form of reprisal for my activism, I will hold Jess Hill and her cohorts responsible and serious lawsuits will be filed in response.