Robert Fisk Debate

 The last few days have seen a lot of writing about Robert Fisk.  All are positive.  Now it is normal for small mourning type posts to be positive.  But I have seen many long posts that discuss his entire career in journalism, while the fact that he was controversial for at least the last 7 years has been completely ignored.

 This is the problem with "mainstream" Western media.  Although Robert Fisk is not a Western mainstream journalist in that sense, he has spent his life writing for the Middle East against the West's unjust war, but he has also reached out to mainstream journalists in Qatar for a long time, thanks to writing in the mainstream media like The Independent.  And the enormous amount of respect he has received, the countless awards he has received, the admiration of people like Noam Chomsky - in a word, the kind of living legend he has become that the Western media has not questioned.

 The question is, what is the controversy over Robert Fisk?  The controversy is that during the whole of Syria's civil war, Robert Fisk wrote for Bashar al-Assad.  Now there is nothing wrong with writing for Bashar.  I myself was in Libya during the Libyan civil war, and witnessed first-hand the horrific crimes committed by the rebels, the videos of Gaddafi's soldiers being slaughtered, and the videos of people being chopped to death.  Not even Al-Jazeera.  The whole time they have ignored them and presented the rebels as great revolutionaries.

 So if a journalist goes against the Western narrative and exposes the injustices and conspiracies of the rebels, it is not wrong.  But the question is if he abandons the ethics of basic journalism in doing so?  What if the "Bigger Picture" shows up and ignores the little details?  That is what happened to Robert Fisk.

 Robert Fisk has worked against Western wars all his life.  And in doing so, his "world view" was determined.  He began to see any problem in the world through that same lens.  That's why he reported throughout the war in Syria as if the war in Syria was just another Western conspiracy against Bashar al-Assad.  Bashar al-Assad is also a power-hungry cold-blooded assassin, and his forces have carried out massacres and applied chemical gas in various places.  Rather, he used the same descriptions as Bashar's media when describing them.

 His reporting has been discussed in detail.  I give just one example here.  In 2012, Fisk wrote an article, Syria's road from jihad to prison.  There, Fisk visited a Bashar-controlled prison in Syria, which he described as the most notorious prison in Syria.  So in this prison he interviewed four prisoners, and based on their testimonies tried to convince the world how bad the rebels really are.

 Now naturally the question arises in your mind - can the prisoners of such a notorious prison express their opinion freely?  What is the guarantee that they did not lie for fear?  Legendary reporter Robert Fisk reassures you that the governor and guards of the prison left the room during the interview at his request.  And even at the end of the interview, he did not show his notes to the prison authorities.

 It may sound comforting to sit in an AC room, but in reality if you imagine yourself in the place of the prisoners who have been tortured day after day in Syria's most notorious prison, they are suddenly approached by a Western reporter and asked something in a secluded room.  Going against?

 Even if they are assured that the notes will not be shown to the prison authorities, they should come to their senses - it is not a good idea to show the notes, but only two days later when the report based on this interview is published in The Independent, it is in the eyes of the prison authorities.  Will fall!  Then who will save them?

 Didn't this simple logic come to the mind of a legendary journalist like Robert Fisk?  Probably not.  Perhaps he was so obsessed with the "Bigger Picture" that such petty logic, small details escaped his notice.  This is an acceptable explanation to me.  Because it would be hard for me to believe that the second possibility is that Fisk has deliberately lied.

 The world will remember Robert Fisk's contribution throughout his life.  But at the same time, the controversies surrounding him should be discussed.  Just the admirable obituary is an injustice to the legacy of a celebrity journalist.