My bet is:-
"Are they being pressured by certain agencies (which ones?) to doctor what they say, though in fact they know the truth?"

They probably know whatever they say will be ignored and they don't want bad "repercussions"...as we are seeing with the current attacks on Ecuador for so RIGHTLY and MORALLY granting Assange political asylum.

Thanks for your reply, William.

I have to say, though, that I find this pretty perplexing. I've met and spoken with a few journos, a lot of academics, and a sample of UN workers of various levels, all of whom would - I take it - have to be a part of this conspiracy, or be fearful of the repercussions of speaking out, as you put it. But none of them seem to me to give any indication of this, including in off-the-record discussions and interviews under Chatham House rules. Indeed, many of the academics have emphasized in print how they perceive the situation in Syria to be much more complex than Libya, for example. And most of them are perennial critics of US foreign policy. None seemed to me to fear or ultimately be subject to any repercussions of their doing so.

Equally, I am passingly familiar with the behaviour of Brazil and India on the Security Council, whose positions clearly carry weight (they can't be ignored) and most definitely are not averse to sharp critique of the West on such matters, when they feel it is warranted. So why would they be party to this?

As Mat Hardy said above, I just don't see the type of coherent conspiracy that can orchestrate the consensus in question across all the layers and diverse actors who would have to be involved. Of course I understand there is a dumbing-down in media sound-bites, and a tendency to fit stories into a neat 'good-guy, bad-guy' theme, but beyond that, well, I just don't see it.

Thankyou, Hugh. I think the Lawyers have got one thing right....when 2+2 doesn't equal 4 ... ask Cui Bono ("To whose benefit?", literally "as a benefit to whom?").

Perhaps, like Morality it's a universal "thing"...What a great subject you study.....In suspect universal MORALITY & perhaps consensus is the key "argument" to much of humanity’s problems.

My theory is, prior to fairly recent widespread access to internet only a handful of blokes controlled all English written Mainstream media companies....Over time these few men could effectively get the "political narrative" they want by whom they hire & fire....They can choose what articles get run and PAID for. Perhaps most POLITICAL Journos that stay published are "true believers" with the "correct political views"..perhaps some "meal ticket toadies" who need money...but it is irrelevant cause, if they don't tow the line they don't get published.

The important thing is vitally exactly WHO finances these few "Media Barons" and keeps them afloat?
Eg It's a good bet that Murdoch et al didn't go from one small business in Adelaide to a Company worth 1,000's & 1,000's of Millions without VERY serious Bank lending and equity, despite public equity.
SOME elite bankers have access to almost unlimited capital (and at almost no cost due to the US Fed reserve & other systems.. ..they are "involved" in if not control) ....They also have HUGE multifarious GLOBAL business & assets (some including Oil, Military supply, and BANKING...media & you name it!).

It follows, there is good chance that if these very few "Media Barons" did not run the narrative these very few "financial backer blokes" want to see they would be kaput when next NEED money. Also, they can be probably be replaced by others being financially backed to remove them.
Perhaps harder with Murdoch because I think he has tried to keep "legal control" in family equity but ..he probably would not have lasted too long or got too far with the "wrong narrative" or if he had not had someone like perhaps Rockefeller behind him with the money.

It follows that if one can control the "Media Narrative" THEY CAN to some extent determine the "political agenda" and policies OUR politicians "dance to".
If politicians/parties are not "towing the line" they can "black them out" or do "a little smear job" like we just saw on Abbott due to an UNSUBSTANTIATED allegation by one person that he had a little "Outburst" or "Tantrum" when he was a teenager....
Perhaps a PERFECT EXAMPLE...It's beyond my belief that is possible to spin this into any political harm ...but it might have cost Abbott hugely in the polls, if not even his ascendancy. But there you have it.

I know I will be shunned from "on high" and cop much abuse for being a "conspiracy theorists"..HOWEVER there is no other possible logical explanation I can deduce.

PERHAPS THIS IS WHY WE HAVE SO MANY PROBLEMS AND SO MUCH IMMORALITY IN THE WORLD .....due to lousy flow of ideas & political debate. The internet is a reason to be cheerful....until the filter it I suppose.

Thanks William,

You may be right, and I certainly don’t have any knockdown argument that you are wrong. It seems to me, though, then when 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4, that just means you are dealing with human beings. Strange stuff happens because human beings are complex and human societies complicated. Sometimes individuals tell the truth in the face of enormous pressure not to, and other times they lie just for the hell of it. I don’t see the need to believe in a conspiracy to explain these very humdrum facts (as I take them to be).

And, in any case, one cannot ask ‘who benefits?’ without a knowledge of the facts on the ground, which is precisely what is in dispute. If Assad really is ruthlessly murdering civilians en masse, then those civilians all benefit from that story being told. And if the insurgents really are from foreign countries, then they benefit from the true story not being told. One cannot measure costs and benefits without deciding whether these people exist and what their aims are.

Indeed, the sheer abundance of diverging conspiracy stories worries me. If it really was the case that one conspiracy story explained the complex data better than a ‘humans are complicated’ line, then that would be compelling, of course. (Conspiracies really do happen.) But for a genuine explanation of the data we really need some specifics; who (exactly) is doing it? What (exactly) is their purpose? How do they have the power to do these things (and if they really were this powerful, why would they even need to do these things?)? Why are individuals in these conspiracy groups not faced with the rewards for defection that always accompany such social arrangements? Why don’t they splinter? Why aren’t their other competing conspiracy groups that work to uncover and thwart them? If we are ambiguous on these questions, then it seems to me we don’t have a genuine explanation.

William,

I am not saying it is "un-remediable" - I'm saying that the real problem for Syria is next door. And it's not just a problem for Syria, it is a problem for the world as a whole.

I've wasted too much of my life being right and irrelevant. Flapping about up in the grandstand chanting Hands off Syria just ain't gonna have much effect. Or do you think the Saud family is listening, or Hilary Clinton or anyone else?

Syria will not have peace until the Saudis are sent packing. It is their interests and only their interests that are being pushed in Syria. They are pushing their interests in a large number of countries right across the Islamic world.

If you read what I wrote you'll see that I actually agree with Tim regarding outside influence and involvement - it is backed up by my Syrian mates here and overseas. They have been watching this unfold for years.

The point is what to do about it, to misquote Lenin. I reckon it's time to cut the bumper-sticker, cheer squad crap and get stuck into the source of this epidemic of violent hatred.

I disagree...

I think MSM credibility is only about 11% now...Despite the phenomenal efficacy of propaganda, word of mouth and better quality information flows will speed up & triumph in the end.....The Govt & MSM can not totally control the "Narrative" anymore.....(BRAVO & THANKS "THE CONVERSATION" et al).

Just how long is the challenge for all who desire peace, goodwill and universal Justice.....so we can ALL HAVE A GOOD TIME!!
How can anyone be happy when they see such injustice as we see and DO NOTHING!
...it's is not an option for any moral person.

Tim,

Qatar? That little flea bite of a place? I reckon that's a much easier target than the real one myself.

These bedfellows change cots faster than a Thursday night in a Cairo bordello, mate.

Have a squizz at this: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/21/how_saudi_arabia_and_qatar_became_friends_again

The real poison is the wahhabist feudal crap pumping out of the Saudi peninsular. And no one but no one wants to talk about that or blame them. Much easier to pick on Qatar.

There you go again - muddying the waters with your facts.

It's quite true that Qatar is barely a nation ('a petrol station disguised as a country', as I think George Galloway put it), but as it wholly owns Al Jazeera and as some people (including yourself, it seems) think that is some sort of liberal or credible media channel, it is important to recognise the Qatari role

Many thanks for your post Asef ... I'm glad you find that simple.

You're spot on regarding the media and the goodies and baddies business. Anything like this is far far to difficult for a 30 second story and they want to tell people who they should be barracking for - like football - but no referee and lots of guns from all over the world. Very sad.

Yes Asef. It is all very well to be talking about "regime change" from the comfort of Washington or Australia but with the dictator gone, and hopefully a new government elected, the problems of daily life remain. Food and work and hanging over that the effects of environmental collapse.

And again you are dead right about Egypt - Cairo is sinking under its own weight and the black economy robs the state of resources to even consider the problems. I must admit I'd be tracking down the fella who designed the Aswan Dam, now almost filled with silt and mud, and doing something shocking to him. Without that annual flood and the topsoil it brought with it, the fate of the Delta was sealed and agriculture became increasingly dependent on chemicals.

I always liked the idea behind the old Nilometers - where the tax rate was derived from the height of the pharaoh's flood - essentially indexed to productivity. Very clever notion. Maybe we need the pharaohs back.

Why is it every time outsiders go near these places - Americans changing regimes, Russians building dams, British and French drawing borders - we bugger it up? You'd think we'd learn would you?

What Mr Hussain says does not ad up to me? It's obvious there is a Israel(US?) agenda....look at the rebels supply lines & the RHETORIC.
Haven't people of many sects lived together in Mid East for ages?.. and, by & large, when no western meddling, also lived in PEACE...Why would they want endless wars if there uniform law & justice..and perhaps there wasn't these western trade restrictions?
EXPLAIN PLEASE?

William, you're a card. Lived in peace? Islam was born in blood and this region has never been at peace for long.
Uniform law & justice? Syria has been for nearly 40 years subject to the meandering exploitative decisions of a dictator held up by a corrupt elite.
As for 'Western' meddling. The only boots on the ground are Iranian and Russian. The Russians have two powerful destroyers and three major landing ships in Syria. A detachment of marines - of unknown size, is aboard. Or maybe on the ground as 'advisers'.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guards have had people in Syria (and Lebanon) for decades. They have dispatched 2,000 fighters to Syria in recent months.
The Shia crescent is being formed - and the blundering Russians are creating a stick for their own backs.

As with any dam , Aswan dam has had many positive impacts as well as negative, positives greatly outweighing negatives though. It wasn't forced on Egyptians by Soviets, they asked for it and could afford it only by playing on cold war rivalries. It was designed and built using best technology available at that time, and it's current state is a result of years of operation.
Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak could be viewed as modern pharaohs, and it didn't end up well as we know.
I don't accept suggestion that the only way country like Egypt can sustain its existence is to be isolated from "destructive interventions" of West and be stuck on social and technological level of 3000 BC.

If you want an informed analysis of what is going on, check out Patrick Seale's piece in Middle East online:
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=54588