“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

The "Dirty War" over Syria is ongoing (US boots are literally on the ground right now) and there are many documented disinformation campaigns revolving around it from both sides, including from Western intelligence mouthpieces like Bellingcat. To assert that it is "settled" and Hersh is therefore "debunked" is deeply disingenuous.

https://mronline.org/2021/10/11/bellingcat-funded-by-u-s-and...

What is settled is Russia’s crimes in Syria and their indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Seymour lost credibility by disregarding these facts in his reporting. The U.S. is still involved there and the U.S. hardly can take the moral high ground when it comes to the Middle East but neither can Russia and Seymour acts as if they can.

The US is actively occupying Syria, facilitating the theft of its natural resources including oil to (also occupied) Northern Iraq, while backing AQ-affiliated terrorists like Abu Mohammad al-Jolani to advance its goal of overthrowing the legal Syrian government.

US state media literally aired a puff piece for Jolani, including interviews from top DoD officials. It is staggering [1].

These are all undisputed facts which I can supply primary evidence to support. Russia is doing nothing of the sort. Some civilians possibly died as collateral as Russia targeted extremist strongholds in extremist-controlled Idlib. In fact, outside the West, Russia is credited with preventing Syria from turning into an Iraq/Libya-style disaster.

[1] - https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/the-jihadist/...?

PBS is not state media. Jolani is still designated as a terrorist by the U.S. And northern Iraq is occupied by... the people who have lived there for probably 4,000 years (but admitted were only identified as a separate demographic in the 16th century).

What do you call it, then, when a media group uncritically platforms active DoD officials on current affairs? Ask yourself, how do they even get that level of access? It's de facto state media. In this case, PBS is directly acting as a mouthpiece for the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies.

Northern Iraq, like Eastern Syria is currently occupied by US military forces. The Iraqi government has asked them to end the illegal occupation.

A news outlet interviews U.S. DoD officials. They also interview people the U.S. designates as terrorists. They get perspectives from all sides.

And your conclusion is that... this indicates extreme bias?

I never used the words "extreme bias". I said "state media", the act of propagating the official government narrative. This is what PBS frequently does, and why it gets unprecedented access to government officials. It's not morally wrong, but we shouldn't be afraid to call it out for what it is.

Have you even watched the program?