美国以独裁者的借口为其反阿萨德政策辩护，同时又支持独裁的沙特王国。美国是怎么向民众解释这种虚伪的？ [美国媒体]

The United Statesjustifies its anti-Assad policy on the basis that he is a dictator, while atthe same time supporting the autocratic Saudi Kingdom.How is this hypocrisy being explained to the people of the U.S.?

美国以独裁者的借口为其反阿萨德政策辩护，同时又支持独裁的沙特王国。美国是怎么向民众解释这种虚伪的？


Ozgur Zeren, Author atViaPopuli.com
Updated Dec 16, 2015
Such stuff is not 'explained' to US public.

这些事情没有被“解释”给美国公众。

You just don't talk about it. You keep it away from public sight.

你只要不讨论它就行了，让它远离公众视线。

And state and media use words like 'king', 'president' when describingthese people, when necessary.

当需要描述这些人时，政府和媒体使用“国王”“总统”这样的词语。

All the puppet dictators who US put on top of south american or africancountries were presented as 'Presidents' of those countries in media in thepast. From Pinochet to Batista. None of them were ever called 'dictator'.

美国在南美和非洲国家扶植的所有傀儡独裁者在过去都被媒体称为这些国家的“总统”。从皮诺切特到巴蒂斯塔，没有一个被称为“独裁者”。

So when the State, and corporate media - which constitutes 90% of media -present these people as 'presidents', 'kings', 'loyal ally' and does notmention one word about their brutality and backwardness, anyone else who doestalk about them appears 'fringe', and easily dismissed/ignored by publicperception.

因此，当国家和公司媒体—包括了90% 的媒体—将这些人称呼为“总统”、“国王”、“忠诚的盟友”，并且根本不会提及他们的残暴和落后，其他谈论他们的人就会显得“边缘化”，容易被公众的感知所忽视。

Actually this is the method used for anything else - making undesirableelection candidates disappear from public sight or making them 'fringe',marginalizing protests, opposition, criticism - anything.

实际上这种方法也被用在其它方面—让不受欢迎的选举候选人从公众视野中消失或者使他们“边缘化”，边缘化抗议、反对、批评—任何事情。

There is free speech, see, that 10% alternativemedia. But the noise and reach of the corporate media, 90% of which is owned by~6 corporations, readily cancels out all the rest. So, you both have 'freespeech' and 'media freedom' and at the same time you have a totally compliant,subservient establishment media domination.

看看另外10%的媒体，使你相信是有言论自由的。但是由公司媒体—其中90%被6家公司拥有—所制造的噪音和影响力，很轻易的抵消掉其它所有的声音，你同时拥有“言论自由”和“媒体自由”，但是你要受到各种彻底服从的、从属关系的媒体的控制。

















These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of TheMedia In America

这6家公司控制着美国90%的媒体

Beyash Jaya
Answered Oct 16, 2015
There is nohypocrisy, there is only manipulation, disinformation, and propaganda.Consequently, the "hypocrisy" will not be explained to the public butis pushed out of the consciousness of the public by all available means.
To explain my point of view, let us distinguish between two issues:
1.           The USforeign policy.
2.             The USrhetoric to justify their foreign policy.

不存在虚伪，只有人为操纵、造谣和宣传。结果就是“虚伪”不会向公众进行解释，而是动用一切可能的手段，将之从公众的意识中排挤出去。
为了解释我的观点，让我们对两个问题进行区分：
1.        美国的外交政策
2.       美国使用各种言辞为他们的外交政策辩护

The USrhetoric justifies their interventions by humanitarian reasons and other nobleintentions. If these are the main driving factors of the US policy, howit is possible that there are so many examples showing the opposite? 
Examples include
1.           Overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran andsetting up a pro-western Shah dictatorship.
2.             Support of Saddam Hussein.
3.             Support of the former Apartheid regime in South Africa. Putting Mandela onthe list of terrorists.
4.             Support of Egypt'sformer dictator Mubarak and Egypt'scurrent dictator Al Sisi.
5.             Support of the most extreme islamistic state, Saudi Arabia.
6.             Drone terror in Afghanistan,Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The huge majority of thevictims are not terrorist but civilians (called pitiable collateral damages).


美国以人道主义的原因和其他高尚的目的为其干预辩解。如果这些真是美国政策的主要驱动因素，怎么可能有如此多的例子表现出相反的情况？
例子包括：
1.        推翻伊朗民主选举政府，建立亲西方的巴列维独裁政府。
2.       支持萨达姆·侯赛因
3.       支持之前南非的种族隔离统治，将曼德拉列入恐怖分子名单。
4.       支持埃及前独裁者穆巴拉克和现在的独裁者塞西。
5.       支持最极端的伊斯兰主义国家沙特阿拉伯。
6.       用无人机攻击阿富汗、巴基斯坦、也门和索马里的恐怖分子。但是绝大多数受害者都不是恐怖分子，而是平民（被称为令人遗憾的附带伤害）

This is onlya small excerpt of a long list of  a US foreign policy incompatible withtheir claimed humanitarian attitude. In addition, it is quite easy to compile asecond list showing that the USis not intervening though humanitarian reasons would demand it.
The conclusion is that USpolicy is not about humanitarian reasons and noble intentions. It is morelikely that the USforeign policy is primarily driven by vital economic interests and geostrategicreasons.

这些只是美国外交政策与其所称的人道主义态度不符的长长列表中的一小部分。另外，很容易就能编制一份本来需要人道主义干预，而美国却没有进行的清单。
结论就是美国政策与所谓的人道主义和高尚目的无关。更可能的是美国政策主要由至关重要的经济利益和地缘战略因素驱动。

But every government needs support from their population, in particular inwar times or for military interventions. The US population would never support awar against Assad if Obama explains that it is not about humanitarian reasonsbut about removing a guy that does not comply with US interests such as theSaudi regime. The US population would never have supported a war against SaddamHussein with hundred of thousands deaths if Bush would have explained that itis not about humanitarian reasons but about removing a dictator who suddenlystopped serving US interests.

但是每届政府都需要民众的支持，特别是战争时期或者为了进行军事干预。如果奥巴马政府向美国民众解释说不是人道主义因素，而是因为要搬掉不符合美国利益（与沙特政权相反）的绊脚石，美国民众将不会支持发动推翻阿萨德的战争。如果布什向民众解释称不是人道主义因素，而是换掉一个突然间就不再为美国利益服务的独裁者，美国民众同样不会支持发动以数十万生命为代价推翻萨达姆·侯赛因统治的战争。

If you kill hundred of thousands of civilians, you need a good justification.For ordinary people, economic interests and geostrategic reasons are notconvincing arguments in favor of brutal slaughter. Thus, to receive support andto avoid outright rejection, every government tells their people that military interventions are motivated by the most noble intentions. 

如果你杀了数十万平民，那么你需要一个好的借口进行辩解。对普通人来说，经济利益和地缘战略因素都不是令人信服地支持残酷屠杀的借口。因此，为了得到支持和避免彻底被拒绝，每届政府都告诉他们的人民，军事干预是出于最高尚的目的。

One does not need to be smart to notice that the noble rhetoric and theactual policy do not match. So one may expect that media is also aware of thisblatant mismatch between rhetoric and policy. Apparently the media outlets arenot interested to shift this serious and important issue in the publicconsciousness. Otherwise, we would not have such questions. In addition, theway the few answers presented here also indicate that this topic is not ofpublic interest in western media.

一个人不需要很聪明就能注意到高尚的言辞和实际的政策不一致。 所以人们可能会期待，媒体同样意识到了这种公开的言辞和政策之间的不一致。很显然，媒体没有兴趣把这个严肃且重要的问题转移到公众的意识中。否则我们就不会有这样的问题。 另外，这里回复的仅有的几个答案也表明这个话题也不符合西方媒体的公共利益。

Dan Holliday, I am anAmerican
Answered Dec 16, 2015
Never make the mistake of thinking that international politics is fair,consistent or logical.  It isn't.  The moment you accept that andmove on, the happier and less troubled you will be.  Cognitive dissonanceis an absolute requirement for all human beings.  Nobody lives a perfectlyconsistent, ethically fair life.  Nobody.  It's impossible.  Weall create special exceptions (however small) for different things inlife.  The bigger the subject, the bigger the cognitive dissonance. The USmakes friends based on how those friends play under the banner of Americanhegemony.  That's it.  Nothing else.  Period.  End ofdiscussion.

永远不要犯“认为国际政治是公平的、一致的或合乎逻辑的”这种错误。如果你接受了那种观点，你将会更快乐并且会有减少麻烦。认知失调对所有人都是绝对需求。没有人过着完美一致，道德公平的生活。没有人，这也是不可能的。我们全都在为生活中不同的事情创造特殊的例外（不管有多小）。主题越大，认知失调就越大。美国交朋友基于这些朋友在美国霸权旗帜下的所作所为。就是这样，没有别的。

Victor Xing, came tothe U.S.as a 9th grade student
Answered Dec 15, 2015
The message "Assad is evil and he must go" is often readilyabsorbed by some in the U.S.,hence there requires little effort to induce the following response: "oh,he murdered his people?  What a monster!  Get him out!"
·                Some people would equate "free media" with "unbiasedmedia," and as long as the source is not "state-owned," themessage "must be true"
·                Others may not be aware that "bad things" happen all the time inthe world, and they do not have a frame of reference to gauge the degree of"Assad's sins"
·                Many people can't point out Syriaon the map, and they do not have the historical context of Syria nor thechain of events that led to the Syrian civil war
·                Most people do not care - it is easy to retweet "down with thedictator" than trying to dig deeper at a situation

“阿萨德是邪恶的，必须下台”的信息很容易被美国的一些人接受，因此不用费力就能引发下列回应：“啊，他谋杀他的民众？真是个魔鬼！推翻他吧！”。
¨       一些人会认为“自由媒体”等同于“没有偏见的媒体”，并且认为只要消息来源不是“国有媒体”，那么消息“肯定是真的”
¨       另外一些人可能没意识到世界上“坏事”一直在发生，就无法用参照系来衡量“阿萨德的罪恶”的程度。
¨       很多人都不能在地图上指出叙利亚的位置，他们也不了解叙利亚的历史背景和导致叙利亚内战的一连串事件。
¨       大多数人不关心 – 转发“推翻独裁者”的推特很容易，相较于试图深入了解情况。


Perspective after exposure to the Chinese and Russian news media

接触中国和俄罗斯媒体后的视角

I also agree with Paul Denlinger that Communist Partyof China functionslike a corporation, and watching CCTV is like watching amarketing campaign of decent production value.  Many people know exactlywhat the official news media stands for: the official mouthpiece with unabashedtalking points of corporate strength and efforts to downplay its competitors.

我同意Paul Denlinger 的观点，认为中国共产党像一个公司一样运作，看中央电视台就像看对生产价值进行的体面的营销活动。许多人明确的了解官方新闻媒体的立场是什么：官方喉舌不加掩饰地谈论企业实力并且努力贬低竞争对手。

After awhile, even little children have built up a good dose of immunityfrom official talking points - if CCTV airs less coverage about a seniorofficial, kids would ask:"mom and dad, did something bad happen to uncle[name of the official]?"

一段时间之后，即使是小孩子也通过官方的谈论点建立了很好的免疫力 – 如果中央电视台对一位高级官员的报道少了些，孩子们会问：“爸爸妈妈，那位伯伯出了什么事吗？”

The U.S.news media, however, take the form of a selfless hero of social justice (butactually paid by outside interests).  People are more likely to respondwith "sign me up"

然而美国的媒体采取了维护社会公正的无私英雄的形式（但是实际上被外部利益体收买了）。人们更可能以“让我注册”来回应。

When it comes to information, unguarded minds are much easier to convincethan those who are skeptical.

当涉及到信息时，没防备的人比那些持怀疑态度的人更容易被说服。

Leif Jerram, Professor('SL') in urban studies and urban history
Answered Jan 21, 2016
To get beyond the conspiracy theories here, important though some ofthem are: the question contains a false assumption that the major objections ofWestern governments are to do with autocracy, and creates a platform of falseequivalence on which other arguments can be made.

要超越这里的阴谋论，虽然其中一些很重要：这个问题包含一个错误的假设，即西方政府主要的反对对象与专制有关，并创造了一个虚假的对等平台，其他的论据都可以在这个平台上被制造出来。

The difficulty with the Assad regime is not simply that it is'autocratic'. The Saudi regime is pretty disgusting, but it's not in the sameleague as what's happening in and around Syria. There are a range of otherthings going on, all of which are widely discussed in the US, the UKand in France.These are not secrets.

难点在于阿萨德政权不仅仅是 “专制”。沙特阿拉伯政权相当令人恶心，但是与发生在叙利亚及其周边不在同一等级。还有一系列其他事情正在发生，所有的事情都在美国、英国和法国被广泛讨论。这些都不是秘密。

1.              The Assad regime routinely bombards, beseiges, and attacks wide tranchesof its own population. Saudi, vile as its secret police is, does not do this.
2.             The Assad regime routinely conspires with major and ongoing geopoliticalcompetitors to US hegemony,like Russia and Iran, and conspires against major regionalallies, like Israel.Saudi does not do this.
3.             The Assad regime was so brutal in the treatment of its own people thatthey allowed Isis to arise, and cause so muchwidespread destruction in neighbouring countries.  Saudi does not do this.
4.             The Assad regime has caused a vast, epoch-defining refugee crisis which threatensto destabilise Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon,Iraq and Greece. Saudidoes not do this.
5.             The Assad regime has used illegal chemical weapons. Saudi has not donethis.
6.             For a few years, the Saudi regime (vile as it is) has been indicatingattempts to change, and is currently changing. Not fast enough, no; and notradically enough either. But Assad refused all attempts to modify what washappening in Syria.Fool.
7.             Some very rich Saudi citizens, and even some aspects of Saudi foreignpolicy, do, of course, promote a particularly ugly form of Islam, Wah'habbism.But everyone knows this, and the secret services of the USA, UK,Israel, France, Germany,Russia and Jordan know thethreat, and in a situation of cooperation, are best placed to contain it.Should those countries start a conflict with Saudi, this would be impossible.

1.      阿萨德政权经常轰炸、围困和攻击本国主要的族群。而沙特，即使是坏透的秘密警察也没有这样做。
2.     阿萨德政权经常和美国霸权的主要地缘政治对手进行合作，比如俄罗斯和伊朗，并且共同对抗美国的主要地区盟友，比如以色列。而沙特没有这样做。
3.     阿萨德政权对待本国人民太残暴，以致于他们允许ISIS壮大，并在邻国造成严重的破坏。沙特没有这样做。
4.     阿萨德政权造成了巨大的、划时代的难民危机，威胁着约旦、土耳其、黎巴嫩、伊拉克和希腊的稳定。沙特没有这样做。
5.     阿萨德政权使用了非法的化学武器。沙特没有这样做。
6.     几年来，沙特政权 (这是卑鄙的) 一直在表明试图改变，目前的确在变化。不够快， 没有；也不够彻底。但是阿萨德拒绝了所有试图修正叙利亚发生的事情的努力。傻瓜。
7.     一些非常富有的沙特公民，甚至是沙特外交政策的某些方面, 确实也会推行一种特别邪恶的伊斯兰教形式，瓦哈比主义。但大家都知道这一点, 美国、英国、以色列、法国、德国、俄罗斯和约旦的情报机构清楚这一威胁，在合作的情况下，能最有效的遏制这一危险。如果这些国家与沙特发生冲突，这是不可能的。

So while neither of the regimes will win a beauty pageant, the premise ofthe question - and therefore, all the answers which build upon it - is false. Ithink that, for that part of the public which debates foreign policy, thesethings are relatively well understood.

因此虽然这两个政权都不会赢得选美比赛，这个问题的前提—所有的答案在这个基础之上—是错误的。我认为，对于那些对外交政策进行辩论的公众来说，这些事情都已经了解的比较清楚了。