After President Trump bombed Syria in April, Seymour Hersh claimed that he had done so because he preferred the "evidence" of the jihadi propaganda he was watching on television to the information he was provided by the intelligence and military.
It has now been revealed that Trump's decision to end the CIA's support for the jihadis in Syria was also the result of his watching a jihadi propaganda video: one of the beheading of a child for the "crime" of supporting the Syrian government. I wrote about this video in an earlier post, which includes a link to the video.
Both of these decisions were informed by the jihadis own propaganda. However, the differences are telling. The April 2017 propaganda was produced for Western consumption and was intended to be presented in the western corporate media. However, in the case of the second example, the child beheading, the propaganda was not aimed at a western audience; it was for internal, jihadi consumption.
These differences were reflected in the corporate media's treatment. The April "chemical weapons attack" propaganda was widely reported. It was framed in the most emotive way possible, and it was treated as beyond question. The fact that the sources were jihadist was obscured from view. This propaganda caused an emotional Donald Trump to launch tomahawk missiles on Syria, providing support to the jihadis.
The child beheading propaganda was treated very differently by the corporate media: they ignored it; they pretended it did not exist, even though both RT and AP asked Spokesperson John Kirby about the incident, who could merely express the hope that the CIA supported jihadis would observe the rules of war.
I do not know who brought this child beheading video to Trump's attention, but it was not the corporate media. Apparently, when Trump became aware of the video, and particularly the fact that the beheaders were supported by the CIA as "moderate rebels", he questioned the CIA on the programme and they could not provide any satisfactory answers. Indeed, according to Thomas Joscelyn, by his questioning Trump discovered that the CIA were supporting not only this group but also al Qaeda and other jihadis that were allied with Islamic State. It was on the basis of this information that Trump decided to cancel the CIA programme.
The corporate media, not only treated these products of jihadi propaganda differently, they also treated Trump's reponses very differently. When Trump bought the "chemical weapons attack" propaganda, they cheered for all they were worth. When he responded to the beheading video by cancelling the CIA assistance to the jihadists in Syria, they made their outrage known.
The differential treatment of these two episodes might well force an impartial observer to the conclusion that the corporate media is a propaganda outlet for the CIA.