Denmark’s national broadcaster, DR, recently published a report titled "Syrian in Denmark: I had hoped things would get better after Assad – but it’s the opposite." The article features testimonies from a number of Syrians, with a noticeable focus on voices from the Alawite community — a group that was largely aligned with the former regime. This report comes just three months after the fall of that regime, during a critical transitional period in Syria as a new government takes charge. Unfortunately, instead of offering a nuanced and balanced view of the situation, the article presents a skewed narrative that echoes the propaganda of a system that has just collapsed.
A Misrepresented Reality:
As Syria attempts to recover from decades of authoritarianism, war, and repression, this article seems to revive and recycle the narrative of the former regime — overlooking the broader context of what led to its downfall, and erasing the suffering of millions of Syrians who lived under its brutal rule. By amplifying only one side of the story, the report distorts the truth and fails to reflect the complexity of Syria’s post-conflict reality.
Flaws and Missteps in the Article:
1. A One-Sided Narrative: The article highlights the post-conflict experiences of the Alawite community, but entirely neglects the far greater suffering of other communities — those who faced mass displacement, systematic detention, and extrajudicial killings under the previous regime. It fails to give a voice to the regime’s many victims, instead positioning one segment as the sole bearer of loss.
2. Whitewashing the Crimes of the Former Regime: Nowhere in the article is there any serious mention of the atrocities committed by the fallen regime — from indiscriminate bombings of residential areas to widespread torture, starvation sieges, and forced disappearances. These are not marginal incidents; they are well-documented war crimes recognized by international human rights organizations. Ignoring them is a gross misrepresentation.
3. A Misleading Framing of the Crisis: The report implies that the country’s deteriorating conditions stemmed from what came “after Assad,” overlooking the fact that the chaos was rooted in decades of corruption, repression, and violence under the Assad regime. The new government inherited a collapsed state — it did not create the collapse.
4. Erasing the Roots of the Revolution: The article completely omits the real causes behind the Syrian uprising — political oppression, lack of freedoms, systemic corruption, and sectarian favoritism. It also glosses over the fact that many Alawites themselves opposed the regime and paid a high price for doing so, a reality that contradicts the report’s simplistic portrayal.
5. Promoting a Distorted Perspective: The article paints a picture in which only one group has suffered after the regime’s fall, disregarding the far more profound and widespread devastation experienced by millions of Syrians at the hands of the regime itself. This selective storytelling does a disservice to the truth and to public understanding.
As Syria enters a new chapter following the fall of a brutal regime, it is troubling to see major Western media platforms still amplifying the regime’s narrative or providing a sanitized version of events. Journalism has a duty to seek truth, not to reproduce political myths. Syria’s story is not one of sectarian victimhood — it is the story of a people who endured oppression, fought for freedom, and are now struggling to rebuild amid the ruins left behind by one of the most violent systems in modern history. Balanced reporting must reflect this complexity — not hide it.
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.