In the Syrian context, the mass shift was not separate from the transformation of the media itself; in fact, the media often preceded the public, pulling it along. This is observable in the emergence of a new breed of political analysts who have professionalized media fabrication, becoming a gallery of cheerleaders and applauders. To practice this trade of forgery, disinformation, and the inversion of facts, they employ various methods, including:
First, we have observed that media figures and influencers, instead of asking what happened, have turned to asking what people should understand. They have moved from reporting the news to manufacturing meaning. Here, the “cheerleader journalist” appears—one who adds no new information but reframes facts to serve a ready-made narrative, presenting them to the audience under the guise of a “political analyst.”
Analysis here is not an explanation, but a pre-emptive justification. The “analyst” fabricates news from nothing, or inverts it, then relies on repetition and daily appearances using the same phrases until they acquire the “prestige of expertise.” They exhibit a loud certainty and a decisive tone devoid of doubt (for the public dislikes the hesitant). Their internal language says: “We know what others do not.” Over time, the audience mistakes frequency of appearance for depth of understanding.
Second, the reliance on falsification. They do not always lie; rather, they select the most dangerous path: not the false news, but the true news placed out of context. This involves reading a figure without comparison, presenting an individual incident as a general rule, or maintaining total silence on events that contradict the adopted narrative. Thus, a selective reality is constructed that appears logical to those who see it in isolation.
Third, a cunning shift occurs when sharp slogans and biting vitriol are replaced by an ostensibly “rational” discourse. The same person who cheers uncritically begins using terms like “political realism,” “necessity,” and “the current stage.” The viewer believes they are facing a mature analysis, while in reality, it is merely a linguistic beautification of bias.
Fourth, this method succeeds popularly because it addresses psychological rather than intellectual needs. A public seeking comfort is content with someone who thinks “on their behalf” and looks for certainty in ready-made interpretations within a chaotic world. Thus, fake media does not just change your opinion; it relieves you of the burden of thinking.
Fifth, the result is not conviction, but moral ambiguity—a blurring of opinion and fact, and hostility toward any question that disrupts the narrative. With time, people lose the ability to distinguish between analysis, propaganda, and emotion, as investment is made in confusion rather than awareness.
In this case, media fabrication does not impose an opinion by force; rather, it builds a general mood and produces “analysts” whose primary function is to “normalize contradiction and turn it into logic.” In such a state, the most dangerous journalist is not the one who lies, but the one who convinces you that there is no need to ask questions.
When watching any media discourse regarding Syria, we find three distinct categories:
- Objective Analysis (True Analysis): Which explains what happened, why it happened, and what its consequences are. It acknowledges painful facts even if its position causes embarrassment. it clearly distinguishes between the perpetrator and the victim, and the context in which the incident occurred. Objective analysis is not afraid to call a crime a crime.
- Justification: Which does not deny the event but strips it of its moral character, turning it into a “necessity” or a “reaction.” Justification says: “Yes, it happened, but…” and therein lies the lie.
- Inversion of Concepts: This is the most dangerous. Here, there is not only a defense but a transformation of the victimizer into a victim, and the victim into a threat. Oppression is called “protection,” and racism is termed “social realism.” This is not a political opinion; it is a distortion of language itself.
Linguistic indicators reveal justification immediately. Examples include:
- Generalizing the victim: Using terms like “the environment,” “the cradle,” “the region,” or “the composition.” Instead of talking about specific individuals or entities, an entire group is criminalized—a sectarian/racist camouflage in soft language.
- Deleting the actor: Using phrases like “excesses occurred,” “mistakes were made,” or “events spiraled out of control.” We do not know who acted? Who gave the order? Who holds the weapon? The absence of the actor is a quest for implicit acquittal.
- Turning the crime into a reaction: Using claims like “it was inevitable” due to “security pressure,” seeking to “prevent sedition,” or aiming to “protect the state.” This logic makes the crime a consequence rather than a responsible act.
- Immoral equalization: When it is said “both sides made mistakes” or “no one is innocent,” alongside slogans like “Syrian blood is one.” This equality is used to erase the disparity in power, responsibility, and weaponry. This is not neutrality; it is the obliteration of justice.
The question remains: How are sectarianism and racism hidden?
The discourse does not say “this is such-and-such a sect”; it says “the culture of violence,” “the nature of society,” “local particularity,” and “historical problems between them.”
The question is: Is this description always used with the same group? Is it also used with loyalist groups?
If the answer is “no,” we are facing masked racism.
We notice how crimes in the Coast and Suwaida are defended without being denied. We find quick admission: “Yes, excesses occurred,” but an immediate jump to: “but the situation is complex,” “but there was provocation,” “but we don’t know all the details,” “but there are remnants,” “there are separatist entities,” or “there are agents communicating with Israel.”
To end the discussion, they move to: “The judiciary will hold them accountable,” “The state will not allow it,” or “Investigative committees have been formed” (without any actual accountability or objective investigation). This is a moral emptying of the event.
If the same crime were committed and the perpetrator was an opposition entity, would the same language be used?
If the discourse changes from “excess” to “massacre,” from “necessity” to “crime,” and from “complexity” to “brutality,” then this is not analysis. This is linguistic loyalty. The journalist who justifies killing in the name of the state, generalizes guilt onto groups, strips the victim of their humanity, and demands silence in the name of “stability,” is not practicing political analysis—they are engineering a consciousness that serves power and betrays the truth.
What about the media discourse against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)?
Deconstructing the discourse reveals how media hostility is manufactured against the SDF, despite the fact that the March 10 Agreement officially remains in place, while the actual obstruction comes from the side of the authorities. This accurately explains the trend of fabrication and cheerleading.
When a political agreement is in effect but the media escalates, distorts, accuses one side, and ignores the obstruction from the other, we are facing an attempt to manage a media conflict rather than describe reality. The agreement is still valid, but implementation is stalled. The tools of implementation (participation, integration into administrations and the army, sovereign wealth and resources, the displaced, the constitution, and the rights of components) require negotiation and consensus. However, the media discourse ignores these tools and holds one specific side responsible for “delay,” subsequently promoting false accusations such as “procrastination and a desire for secession.” The goal of these behaviors is to strip the SDF of its political character; instead of dealing with it as a functional party that signed the agreement and is backed by a broad social and popular base, it is characterized as a “militia,” a “tool,” an “external arm,” or a “separatist force.”
To justify exclusion from true partnership, “the unity of Syria” is used as a weapon rather than a principle. Thus, they repeat phrases like “the SDF threatens the unity of the country,” “a partition project,” and “parallel entities.” But they do not ask: Who is obstructing decentralization? Who rejects international guarantees? Who monopolizes decision-making? Unity here is not used as a value, but as a scarecrow to shut down debate.
Instead of political discussion and the implementation of the agreement’s terms, integration mechanisms, and the provision of mutual guarantees, a process of “demonizing the Kurds” takes place. The SDF is linked to a single identity, ignoring the Arab and Syriac presence within its ranks. This is a socio-political identity shift and an intentional deception.
They say the SDF is stalling, buying time, and betting on the outside. But the questions that must be asked practically are: Who stopped the work of the negotiation committees? Who froze the tracks? And who failed to provide a timetable?
In reality, under the pretext of extending state authority over all regions, political blackmail is practiced—treason instead of accountability. Seeking more clarity and real guarantees to save the country from chaos is portrayed as seeking strength from the Americans and executing external agendas. In this way, national entitlements regarding the form of the state, achieving transitional justice, and guaranteeing the rights of all Syrian components in the new constitution—among other legitimate demands called for by a wide spectrum of Syrians—are evaded.
In conclusion, there is a calculated media campaign practicing the highest levels of forgery and disinformation against the Syrian Democratic Forces. Instead of stopping at the terms of the March 10 Agreement and addressing them with criticism and logical analysis—focusing on the necessity of commitment and implementation by both concerned parties for the good and interest of Syrians of all ethnic, religious, and sectarian backgrounds—the opposite occurs. Lies are fabricated and accusations are hurled haphazardly at the SDF, casting it as the obstructing party to exonerate the other side—the new Syrian authority—from any potential consequences should this negotiation path fail.
