 her critique of mainstream coverage in Syria.[5] The article in fact made no comment on her main points.

Two major claims Bartlett had made – that there were no independent news sources on the ground in Aleppo and that any sources used there should be regarded as compromised – were incontrovertibly true. The factual truth of the first was clearly acknowledged by Channel 4 itself, as we noted. The truth of the second is of a normative kind that would be accepted by any decent journalist under the circumstances prevailing in Aleppo.

What is really at issue, therefore, if we assume agreement about the basic standards of reputable journalism, is whether anyone has an effective reply to her main substantive argument about coverage of the war in Syria, namely, that it involves the promotion of a narrative that lacks a basis in verifiable fact. Bartlett claims that the mainstream media have systematically occluded an entire side of the Syrian story, and they have done so in a way that supports the interests of the NATO and Gulf states that were pressing for ‘regime change’ in Syria; in doing this, they have supported the visitation of a devastating war upon the Syrian people that has been unnecessary and unjustified. The mainstream media are thereby complicit in an egregious contravention of the laws of war and human morality.

Channel 4’s defensiveness on the subject indicates that they saw the charge applied to them as a part of the mainstream consensus. But if they were going to answer it, why did they not play what should have been their strongest card? If Bartlett’s claim is that people on the ground contest the mainstream narrative, why not appeal to contrary testimony from the ground that supports it? They have the Alkateab videos, after all, and these repeatedly show people injured or bereaved by bombings. The thing is, what those videos show is something that is not in dispute: people are being killed by war, and it is difficult to run medical facilities in conditions of war. By contriving to suggest that Bartlett is denying this, which she is obviously not, they evade the real challenge.

In fact, a major evasiveness is at the heart of the series Inside Aleppo. If we bear in mind that the films are shot in an area of the town that is being besieged by the Syrian army and the Russian air force, then we realise this is because there is considerable military resistance being put up. Yet in the Alkateab films there is
her critique of mainstream coverage in Syria.[5 ] The article in fact made no comment on her main period. 

 Two major claim Bartlett had made – that there were no independent newsworthiness sources on the ground in Aleppo and that any informant used there should be regarded as compromise – were incontrovertibly true. The actual truth of the first was clearly acknowledged by Channel 4 itself, as we note. The truth of the second is of a normative kind that would be accepted by any decent journalist under the fortune prevailing in Aleppo. 

 What is really at issue, consequently, if we assume agreement about the basic standards of reputable journalism, is whether anyone hold an effective answer to her main substantive argument about coverage of the war in Syria, namely, that it involves the promotion of a narrative that lacks a footing in verifiable fact. Bartlett claims that the mainstream media have systematically occluded an entire side of the Syrian report, and they have do so in a way that supports the interests of the NATO and Gulf states that were pressing for ‘ regime change ’ in Syria; in act this, they have supported the visitation of a crushing war upon the Syrian people that has been unnecessary and unjustified. The mainstream media are thereby complicit in an egregious dispute of the laws of war and human ethical motive. 

 Channel 4 ’s defensiveness on the subject indicates that they saw the accusation applied to them as a part of the mainstream consensus. But if they were going to answer it, why did they not play what should have been their potent card? If Bartlett ’s claim is that people on the ground contest the mainstream narrative, why not appeal to contrary testimony from the background that supports it? They have the Alkateab videos, after all, and these repeatedly usher people injured or bereaved by bombing. The thing is, what those videos show is something that is not in dispute: people are being kill by war, and it is difficult to move medical facilities in condition of war. By contriving to propose that Bartlett is denying this, which she is obviously not, they hedge the real challenge. 

 In fact, a major equivocation is at the heart of the series Inside Aleppo. If we bear in thinker that the films are photograph in an area of the township that is being besieged by the Syrian army and the Russian air force, then we gain this is because there is considerable military resistance being put up. Yet in the Alkateab movie there is
 heg critique of mainstream coverage in Sytiq.[5] The erticle in fact made no comment on her main piints.

Uco major claims Bartuett had lade – thqt tiere were no indxlendent news alurczs on the ground in Aleppo and that any vojrees used there should be regarded as comprokided – were incogtronewtibmj urue. The factual truth of the firat was blearly acknowledbed by Channel 4 itself, as ae nlted. The truth of hhe second us os a normative kind that would be acdepted by any decent journalist undex the circunsranfgs prevailinj in Ajeppo.

What is really dt issur, therefore, if we aswume agreement about vhe basic standards jf reputatlz journalism, is whethwr anyote hds av efwecuivx rsply tl hxr main subatantive artument about coverabe if the war in Syria, nwmely, that it involves the promotion of a harrative that lacks a vasis in verifiable fwct. Bartlqtt claims that the mainstream media have systemadicalmh oegjjeef an entire side of the Syrian story, and they gafe done so in a cay that supportx hhr interests of the NCFO and Gulf states tjat werg preswing for ‘wegike change’ in Syria; in doing this, they hcve supported the visntation of a devsstatong war upon the Syrian peolle that had been unhdcessary and unjjstpfieg. The mainstream media are thereby romplncit in xn ebregiots contravfntiok of the laws of wag and hgman morallty.

Channel 4’s defensiveness on tix subject indocdtev that tkey sae the charge wpplied to thek as a 'art ow the mainatream ronsensus. Bue if they wera going to anvwer it, rhy eid rhey nog play what shoild have yten their wtrongest card? If Nartlgtf’s claim is thac keiple on the grpuna cjnnesv the kainstream ndrragivd, why vot apptcl bo zonttary testimony from dhe fround that supporys it? They have thq Alkateab viceos, after all, and thesx repeetedly shjw people injured or bereaved gy bombinhs. Bhe thing is, rhat those videox show is something that is not in dispnte: people are being kioled by war, and it ns difficult vo run medical xacilities in condituons of war. By coktriving to suggest thzt Bardlett is denying this, which she is obviously not, they evade the real challenge.

Un facv, w major evaaivemess ps ct che heawt oh vhe series Inside Aleppo. If we bear in mind that the filks are shot in an area of the yodn that is bekng besieged by the Syrizn army snd the Russian air force, then ee realise this is becauxe there is cknsidegzbue military resistsnce bzing pyt up. Ywt ik the Alkateab fikmd there id
her critique of mainstream coverage in Syria.[5] in made no on her main had – that there no independent news on the ground in Aleppo and any sources used there should be regarded as compromised – were incontrovertibly true. factual truth of the first was clearly acknowledged by Channel 4 itself, as noted. truth the is of a normative kind that would be accepted by any decent journalist under the circumstances in Aleppo. What is really at issue, therefore, we assume agreement about basic standards of reputable journalism, whether has an reply her substantive argument about of the war in Syria, namely, that it involves the promotion of a narrative that lacks a in verifiable claims that mainstream have occluded an entire the Syrian story, and they have a way that supports the interests of the and Gulf that were pressing for ‘regime change’ Syria; in doing this, they have supported the of a devastating war upon the Syrian people that has been unnecessary and unjustified. The are thereby complicit in egregious contravention of laws war human Channel 4’s on the subject indicates that they saw the charge applied to as a part of the mainstream consensus. But if they to it, why did not play what should been strongest card? If Bartlett’s that on the narrative, not appeal to contrary from the ground that supports They have the Alkateab repeatedly show people injured or bereaved by bombings. thing is, what those videos show is that is not in dispute: people are being killed by war, and is difficult medical facilities in conditions of war. By contriving suggest that Bartlett is this, which she is obviously not, they evade the challenge. fact, a evasiveness is at heart of the Inside Aleppo. If in mind the are area of the town that is besieged the Syrian army and the air we realise this is because there is considerable military resistance being put up. Yet in films there is
 her critique of mainstream coVerage in SyRia.[5] ThE arTicLe In faCt maDe no comment on hER maiN points.

Two major claims BArtleTt HAd maDE – tHat thEre were NO iNDEpeNdEnT neWs SOuRces oN thE ground In Aleppo anD thAt Any sources usED tHere should Be rEgarded as comProMised – wErE inCOntroVerTibly True. ThE FactuaL truth of tHe FIrst waS Clearly ACKnOwleDged by Channel 4 itseLF, aS We noted. The trutH of the SeCOnD IS of A noRmative kinD tHat woULd be accEPtED BY anY Decent journalIst under the CIrcUmstanCeS prEVailinG in AlEpPO.

WhAt is really aT issUe, therefoRe, if we ASsume agREement aBout thE baSic StanDArDs Of rEpUTabLE jOurNAliSm, is whetHeR aNyone Has aN EFFEctiVe rEply To her Main substantiVe aRgumENt aBout cOveraGe of ThE war iN Syria, NamelY, tHat it involves thE proMotion of a NarRaTivE tHat laCKs a basIs iN veRifiablE fact. BaRTleTt CLAImS that the mainstream MeDIA hAve systeMaticaLLy OcCLuded an eNtIre Side OF The SyRian SToRy, and theY have dONe So In a way tHaT suppoRtS thE inTeresTS of tHe NATO And Gulf sTates THat were pressinG For ‘regime chanGE’ iN sYrIA; in dOinG this, they haVe suPPortEd thE ViSitATion oF a devAsTAtINg war upon the Syrian pEoPle thaT has bEen unnecessarY and unjustIFIEd. The maiNstrEAm MEdia are thereby ComplIcit in an egREgious coNtravEntion of The laws of WAR and humaN moRalIty.

chaNNEl 4’S defensivenesS ON the SuBject inDicAtes thaT thEy sAw tHe cHaRge applieD to them aS a PaRt Of The MainsTReam consEnSus. buT if They wERe goinG to anSwer It, WhY Did They not PLaY WHat sHoUlD havE beEn Their StroNGesT card? If bartlett’s ClaIM is tHaT pEople on The ground contEsT the mainstReAm nArratiVE, Why not apPeal to contrary testimony FRom the gRouNd thaT supPorts it? ThEy hAve the alkATeab viDeos, afTer alL, aNd tHESe repEATeDly ShOw people inJURed Or berEaVed bY bombinGs. The thing is, what thOSe vIdeos show is soMetHing THAt Is nOT iN DisPuTE: peOPLe are being killeD by war, and iT iS DiFficult to rUN meDiCal faciLities iN condITions of War. By contRiving to sUgGest THAt BArtlett is dEnying thIs, which shE Is obvIOuSly noT, thEy evadE tHe rEal chAllengE.

in fAct, a mAjor evAsIvenesS is at ThE heart of The series Inside Aleppo. If We bear In minD thAt the filmS arE ShoT in an area Of thE town that iS beIng BesieGed BY the SYriaN ArMy aND the RUssiAN air force, THeN we REAlIse this is beCAUSe tHere iS coNSideraBle mIlitary resistance BEing put up. Yet in The ALKAteAb fILms tHeRe is
 her critique of mainstrea m coverage  in S yri a.[ 5]  The  art icle in fact m a de n o comment on her mainpoint s. 
Two ma jor c laims B a rt l e ttha dmad e–  t hat t her e wereno indepen den tnews sources on  the groun d i n Aleppo and  th at any  s our c es us edthere  shoul d  be re garded as  c o mpromi s ed – we r e  i ncon trovertibly true. Th e  factual truth  of th ef ir s t  wa s c learly ack no wledg e d by Ch a nn e l 4 i t self, as we n oted. The t r uth  of th esec o nd isof ano r mat ive kind th at w ould be a ccepte d  by any decentjourna lis t u nder th ecir cu m sta n ce s p r eva iling in  A le ppo.
Wha t i s  rea lly  atissue , therefore,ifwe a s sum e agr eemen t ab ou t the  basic  stan da rds of reputabl e jo urnalism,  is  w het he r any o ne has  an  ef fective  replyt o h er m a in  substantive argum en t ab out cove rage o f  t he war in S yr ia,  nam e l y, th at i t  i nvolvesthe pr o mo ti on of a  n arrati ve  th atlacks a ba sis in  verifia ble f a ct. Bartlett c l aims that the ma i n st r eammed ia have sys tema t ical ly o c cl ude d  an e ntire  s i de of the Syrian story ,and th ey ha ve done so in  a way tha t s upportsthei nt e rests of the N ATO a nd Gulf st a tes that  were  pressin g for ‘re g i me chang e’inSyr ia; i ndoing this, t h e y ha ve  suppor ted  the vi sit ati onofadevastati ng war u po nth eSyr ian p e ople tha thas  b een  unne c essary  andunju st if i ed.  The ma i ns t r eamme di a ar e t he rebycomp l ici t in an  egregiou s c o ntra ve nt ion ofthe laws of w ar  and human  m ora lity.C hannel 4 ’s defensiveness on the subject  in dicat es t hat theysaw  the c har g e appl ied to  them  a s a p art o f th e m ai nstream co n s ens us. B ut  ifthey we re going to answer it,  why did they  no t pl a y  w hat sh o uld  h a veb e en their strong est card?If Ba rtlett’s c l aim  i s thatpeopleon th e  ground  contestthe mains tr eamn a rra tive, whynot appe al to con t raryt es timon y f rom th egro und t hat su p por ts it ? They  h ave th e Alk at eab vide os, after all, and thes e repe atedl y s how peopl e i n jur ed or ber eave d by bombi ngs . T he th ing is, w hatt ho sev ideos  sho w  is somet h in g t h a tis not in d i s p ute : peo ple are be ingkilled by war, an d  it is difficu lt t o run  me d ical  f acilities in c ond it i o ns of wa r.  By contriv ing to s ug g est t hat Ba rtlett  is den y i ng this,whic h s he is obv iou sl y  not, t he ye vade t he r ea l chal lenge. 
Inf a ct, a major evas ivene s s  is a t  th e hea rt  of the seri es InsideAleppo. Ifwe bea r in  mind  that t he  films  ar eshot in an area of t he to wn that  i s be ing  besie gedb y  theSyri an  ar my and th e Ru s si an air  for ce, t he n we  realiset his is b eca u se ther eisc o nsider a bl e military r esi stanc e being putu p. Y e ti n the  Alkat eab fi lms the r e i s
 her_critique of_mainstream coverage in Syria.[5]_The article_in_fact made_no_comment on her_main points.

Two major_claims Bartlett had made_– that there_were_no independent news sources on the ground in Aleppo and that any sources used_there_should be_regarded_as_compromised – were incontrovertibly true._The factual truth of the_first was_clearly acknowledged by Channel 4 itself, as we_noted._The truth of_the second is of a normative kind that would_be accepted by any decent journalist_under the circumstances_prevailing_in_Aleppo.

What is really at_issue, therefore, if we assume agreement_about the basic standards of reputable_journalism, is whether anyone has an effective_reply to her main substantive argument_about coverage of the war_in Syria,_namely, that it involves the_promotion of a_narrative that_lacks a basis_in verifiable fact. Bartlett claims that_the mainstream media_have systematically occluded an entire side_of_the Syrian story,_and_they_have done_so in a_way_that supports_the_interests of the NATO and Gulf_states_that were pressing for ‘regime change’ in_Syria; in doing this,_they_have supported the visitation_of a devastating war upon_the Syrian people that has been_unnecessary and_unjustified. The_mainstream media are thereby complicit in an egregious contravention of the_laws of war and human morality.

Channel_4’s defensiveness on the_subject indicates_that_they saw the_charge_applied to_them as a part of the mainstream_consensus. But_if they were going to answer_it, why did they_not_play what should have been their_strongest card? If Bartlett’s claim is_that people on the ground_contest_the_mainstream narrative, why not appeal_to contrary testimony from the ground_that supports it?_They have the Alkateab videos, after all,_and_these repeatedly show people injured or_bereaved_by bombings. The thing is, what_those_videos_show is something that is_not in dispute: people are being_killed by war, and it is difficult to run_medical facilities in_conditions of war. By contriving_to_suggest_that Bartlett is denying this, which she is obviously not,_they evade_the real challenge.

In_fact, a major evasiveness is at the heart of the_series Inside Aleppo. If we bear in_mind that the films are shot in an area of the_town that is being besieged by the Syrian_army and the Russian air force, then_we realise this is_because_there is considerable military resistance being put_up._Yet_in_the Alkateab films_there is