Another home run by Caitlin Johnstone, who once again backs up with a mountain of investigative reporting what the mainstream media seems incapable of doing: revealing the truth of of a story even when it contradicts US/western govt narratives. What an awesome world it would be if the biggest media outlets had the best journalistic talent working for them. Until then, we'll have to catch Caitlin's articles on whatever non-mainstream outlets will have her.

Worthwhile investigative piece regarding the Syrian chemical attack and mainstream media's silence regarding relevant new info released from WikiLeaks. Caitlin Johnstone writes furiously in this piece, but makes sure to back up every claim with sources and evidence.

At least one part of this story is correct: I could find NO western press coverage of the fact that one investigator's report (a report that disagreed with the OPCW conclusions) was not promoted. OTOH, in looking for such reports, I found the multiple copies of the identical words disseminated by sketchy, pseudo- and quasi-news outlets (abcbusinessnews.com—this is a business story?). The writer (elsewhere) justifies that she only attacks American narratives: fair enough. But basing her stories on RT (Russia Today) sources, and other Russian propaganda outlets, does not inspire a lot of confidence that there is any scandal for Americans to worry about. Specifically, we individuals are impossibly poorly placed to judge whether the one investigator's report SHOULD have been given credence, or buried. This story further is filled with inflammatory writing that inspires even less confidence. I'm quite willing to accept the underlying narrative, on which this story plays, that the US uses other governments, international organizations and NGOs in its propaganda. However, citing Russian propaganda as the foundation for a single issue, without any effort to add value to the propaganda, disqualifies it for me.