This is a major problem for everyone: It’s a problem for Westerners, because wilful ignorance produces policy mistakes, and it’s a problem for non-Westerners, because they’re dealing with opponents who can’t even be relied on to know that key parameters have obviously changed.  

It’s like Columbus coming back and being told: “No you didn’t - you fell off the edge of the flat earth.” After being momentarily stunned, what would Columbus do? He would surely go about his business, consider that person to be a fool and rely on history to tell the tale properly.

Telling the tale properly the day after is the work known as “journalism”: journalism is the history of yesterday, after all.

It’s not easy, but are Western journalists not doing the work here, or are they wilfully lying?

That’s a real question, because any decent journalist today (and any average citizen who wishes to be well-informed) knows the modern media landscape requires examining three areas where news can now be found: the MSM, the alternative media and social media.

On social media there’s no lack of videos which show Iranian missiles striking land time and time again. Such as this one, of an Israeli air base getting hit some 20 times - striking that is rather like striking a Zyklon-B factory in 1943.

Wow.

Iran’s missiles successfully hit Israel’s Nevatim Air Base in the Negev. pic.twitter.com/fz96hA3Uj0

— sarah (@sahouraxo) October 1, 2024

It is crystal clear - Iranian high-speed missiles got through the Iron Dome easily and did damage. As one person wrote on social media: it’s like being attacked by aliens.

Anybody who cared enough to look could easily find these videos. I’m sure many people who didn’t care to look found them on their social media feeds anyway, as they are truly amazing. How the world can change, eh? Who would have thought in 1987 that Iran would rise - technologically, militarily, politically, economically, culturally - to the point where they could strike inside Israel, and that the West would be powerless to stop it?

Of course there’s concern for what Israel will do in retaliation, but the point is made: Iran can now strike anywhere in Israel, and that’s a major reversal of historic parameters. Israeli military censorship means we’ll never see the actual damage, but the videos provide overwhelming proof of this reversal of alleged Israeli impregnability. Even if the missiles had no payload - getting through is enough to change paradigms and smash assumptions, at least to any honest person.

If Iran had targeted residential areas, women and children - like Israel and the West does over and over - then there would be more footage for the naysayers, but Iran only aimed for military sites. (Iran not only wants the moral high ground, they need it because they are espousing high revolutionary ideals.)

Who is getting these facts correct? Forty-eight hours later - not many.

Let’s start with who has: Alt-finance site Zerohedge took a full day to let their greed for profitable trades - which require honest assessments and acceptance of facts - to overpower their usual desire to back Israel. Their October 3 article led with:

“The recent missile barrage striking Israel from Iran showcased a security reality that has startled many people in the west - Israel's ‘Iron Dome’ defense system is not as effective as they believed. Evidence suggests it was clearly overwhelmed, either by the sheer number of missiles (estimates vary but al least 200 were fired), or by new Iranian hypersonic technology.  Either way, this one attack changed the prevailing perspective on Israeli air defense.”

Understating the case a touch, perhaps, but that’s what “objective journalism” requires - leave the hyperbole and overconfidence for op-eds. This is a rare case of a Western media which accepts the new reality - anyone who believed the perpetual propaganda on Iron Dome’s effectiveness should indeed be “startled”.

As devastating a blow - on a cultural and human level, but not on a military operations level - as losing the wonderful Nasrallah was, the Iranian strike has clearly extracted an equal price for his death: Israel’s era of impregnability is over. Definitively.

However, a day earlier Michael Every of Rabobank, whom we can call Zerohedge’s preferred foreign policy expert, evinced the same delusion as the MSM when he repeated as truth what the Israeli military absurdly claimed: “Overnight, around 200 ballistic missiles were again fired into Israel from Iran, most shot down in flight with the help of the US, UK, and Jordan, others hitting open areas near real targets, with only one casualty, a Palestinian.” Every claims Iran “just made a huge strategic error”… but he writes as if he hasn’t seen the footage, or is in wilful denial, or simply won’t admit the truth publicly - so what good is his analysis?

Every is popular mainly because he’s an interesting writer, leavening his work with astute pop culture references but also a bit of Marx: he’s a rare top high-finance thinker who effectively concedes that the socialist/Chinese model is working and that the capitalist/Western model is doomed to inefficiency and inequality. He doesn’t care, of course - he only cares about trying to make money - but how could anyone bother to follow his trading advice when he can’t be bothered to question the bias of Israeli military sources amid wartime?

Moving from alt-media to the MSM, the latter cannot admit, or cannot allow it to be admitted, that the missiles everyone saw get through and land actually got through and landed.

Axios - whose style is to present the news as mere bullet points for busy Western executives who want to know just a little and definitely not too much, and which clearly has sources high up in the Democratic Party - immediately ran to the most biased source they could find: an Israeli arms manufacturer

• “The system"performed as expected" and produced "wonderful" results, Israel Aerospace Industries CEO Boaz Levy told Axios. State-owned IAI developed the system in partnership with the U.S.”

That’s from How Israel's air defenses knocked down Iran's missiles. I shudder at the idea of an editor telling me to call up Israel Aerospace Industries for a quote on this report….

The Associated Press, which is supposed to be the standard-bearer of objective journalism in the US media, aimed to immediately erase any doubts with a headline that beggars belief, “Israel’s multilayered air-defense system passes another test in fending off Iranian missile strike”.

Refusing to publicly admit the truth - is this the MSM’s real problem? How can they have not seen the videos, somewhere? What’s certain is that it has profoundly negative consequences for anyone within range, including for the speaker, and that it doesn’t change the truth.

Rather than offer an insightful debate or drawing attention to the complexities of the situation, Morgan used his platform to further propagate misleading, inflammatory rhetoric that reinforces Western interventionist policies and vilifies Russia.

One of the most significant failings of commentators like Morgan is their refusal to present the full truth behind the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Far from being a simple case of Russian aggression, Russia’s actions in Ukraine were a direct response to the mounting threat posed by NATO’s and the US’s encroachment on its borders. It’s a critical fact Morgan consistently ignores in his [intentionally] oversimplified framing of the conflict.

The US and NATO's push to place military forces and infrastructure right on Russia’s doorstep was an existential threat to Russian security. For years, Russia warned against NATO's expansion and the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member—an outcome that would have effectively surrounded Russia with hostile forces. These warnings were repeatedly dismissed by the West, leaving Russia with no choice but to defend its national security interests. To portray Russia's actions as unprovoked aggression, as Morgan does in his interview with Mearsheimer, is a gross misrepresentation of the geopolitical realities at play.  (Not to mention an indecent lack of elementary fairness.—Ed)

Mearsheimer attempted to bring attention to these critical details, emphasising that NATO’s expansion and the West's disregard for Russian security concerns were pivotal factors in the escalation of the conflict. However, Morgan largely dismissed or downplayed these points, insisting on a narrative that positions Russia as the sole aggressor, while painting the West as innocent defenders of democracy. His one-sided portrayal not only distorts the truth but also exacerbates anti-Russian sentiment, contributing to the growing tide of Russophobia in the West.

By refusing to engage with the complexities of the situation, Morgan’s coverage encourages a dangerous form of jingoism that could escalate international tensions even further.

Piers' wives: Morgan showing off his reward for being an establishment shill. (TGP screenshot)

Morgan’s distortion of facts is not limited to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. When it comes to Israel’s ongoing aggression against Lebanon and Palestine, Morgan’s narrative is equally dangerous and one-sided. Israel’s repeated military assaults on Lebanon, particularly its frequent air raids, are acts of aggression that violate international law and terrorize civilians. These attacks are not defensive measures, as Morgan often suggests, but calculated efforts to maintain Israeli dominance in the region and suppress resistance to its occupation.

In his interview with Mearsheimer, Morgan missed yet another opportunity to delve into the realities of Israel’s constant military aggression, especially toward Lebanon and its pager terrorism attack. Hezbollah, a resistance movement that emerged in response to Israel's brutal occupation of Lebanon, is often vilified in Western media as a terrorist organisation. In reality, Hezbollah plays a critical role in defending Lebanon's sovereignty and protecting Palestinian civilians from Israel’s ongoing atrocities. However, Morgan, like much of the Western media, continues to downplay Israel's repeated violations of Lebanese and Palestinian rights while framing any act of defense by Hezbollah or Palestinian resistance as terrorism.

By refusing to acknowledge Israel’s role as an aggressor, Morgan perpetuates a disturbingly dangerous narrative that dehumanises Palestinians and Lebanese civilians. His interview with Mearsheimer could have explored the nuances of Hezbollah’s role in defending Lebanon and the reasons behind Palestinian resistance, but instead, Morgan clung to simplistic, inflammatory rhetoric that ignores the root causes of the conflict.

But perhaps the most glaring failure of Morgan’s commentary lies in his treatment of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. The situation in Gaza is not merely a conflict—it is a genocide. Israel’s blockade of Gaza, combined with its frequent military assaults, has created one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern history. The people of Gaza are living in an open-air prison, subjected to continuous airstrikes, economic deprivation, and systemic violence. Yet Morgan consistently downplays this reality, framing Palestinian resistance as terrorism while ignoring the root causes of their struggle.

Mearsheimer's academic perspective, which could have illuminated the broader context of Israeli apartheid and the genocide in Gaza, was side-stepped in the interview. Morgan's refusal to discuss or even acknowledge Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza highlights how his platform is complicit in the normalisation of war crimes. By choosing to frame Palestinians as aggressors without addressing the overwhelming brutality they face, Morgan erases the suffering of millions and contributes to the ongoing global indifference to Palestinian genocide.

The most troubling aspect of Morgan’s media presence is the influence he wields over public opinion. His platform reaches millions, and his narratives are often accepted without question by his audience. By presenting biased and untruthful accounts of these complex geopolitical issues, Morgan is not just misleading his viewers—he is helping to shape a dangerous and racist worldview that fuels hatred and division.

Morgan’s most recent interview with Mearsheimer serves as a prime example of how media figures like him perpetuate dangerously simplified narratives that contribute to global instability. His refusal to engage with the real causes of the Ukraine-Russia conflict or acknowledge the legitimacy of Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements only serves to reinforce Western imperialist agendas and dehumanise those who suffer under occupation and aggression.

Morgan’s one-sided portrayal of Ukraine, Israel, and Palestine distorts the truth in ways that dehumanize entire populations. His rhetoric stokes anti-Russian sentiment, fuels Islamophobia, and downplays the ongoing genocide in Gaza. This kind of reporting is not just irresponsible—it is dangerous.

The remedy for voices like Morgan is responsible journalism—journalism that presents the full picture, acknowledges the complexities of geopolitical conflicts, and refuses to simplify issues into good-versus-evil narratives. The role of the media should be to inform, not to incite hatred or support imperialist agendas.