It took a small Texas TV station to expose Rusesabagina’s fraud, The New York Times Complicity | New times


In recent months the New York Times has produced some of the most outrageous lies and anti-Rwanda propaganda, and then earlier this month a little-known San Antonio, Texas TV station shamed the publication after verification of the facts. the latest false and malicious allegations against the government of Rwanda.

On June 5, 2021, the New York Times published an article accusing the Kigali authorities of refusing food and medicine, Paul Rusesabagina, a detainee on trial for terrorism.

All of the fiction is based on information provided by the family of Mr. Rusesabagina who resides in San Antonio, Texas.

Indeed, the allegations are no different from the familiar slander that the family and their foreign sponsors have channeled through this newspaper and other Western media since August 2020, when he was arrested and brought to justice. . Indeed, within the news media, family and supporters have identified individual journalists who regularly do hatchet work.

The New York Times has a full-fledged office in San Antonio, the head of which happens to be a criminal justice reporter. It is true that the media houses attribute certain court stories to particular journalists for the duration of the trial.

In this case, however, it wasn’t the trial that would have required someone covering the case to follow up. Like politics, news is local and when people have a story they want to publish, they contact their local reporter.

Therefore, since the story was initiated and relayed by residents of San Antonio, Rusesabagina’s family could easily have brought their story to the New York Times criminal justice reporter in his hometown.

Instead, what appears to be a paid advertisement regurgitating all kinds of lies that Rusesabagina’s family and other anti-Rwanda groups have been spreading was sent by Abdi Latif Dahir, the newspaper’s reporter in Nairobi. Obviously, he passed on to his editors a document from an advocacy group and individuals who continue to treat Rusesabagina as their meal ticket.

Yet no editor in the New York Times newsroom would approve of such a lopsided story if written about the United States government.

If it ever landed on their desk, they would check with Washington first. However, like all Western news media seeking to reinforce certain stereotypes of what their audiences have been conditioned to do, the New York Times makes no effort to find out Kigali’s position on the allegations. Nor does he seek the opinion of a third party interested in the Rusesabagina case.

While the mainstream Western media has consistently helped promote the anti-Rwanda narrative, there have been instances where relatively small actors have tried to look beyond what sources such as Rusesabagina’s family and their allies were peddling. .

KSAT12 News, a small San Antonio television station, had seen the statement released by Rusesabagina’s family and their foreign supporters, which contained the allegations and set to work on the story.

Not only did the KSAT 12 News quote a statement released by Rwanda’s Corrections Service, dismissing the allegations, but it also contacted what it considered to be a “reliable” third party to establish the truth. When The New York Times chose to publish the bogus claims without asking questions, the TV station sought clarification from the State Department.

Washington quickly refuted the lies, telling the news channel that “the United States Embassy in Kigali has spoken to Rwandan authorities, as well as Belgian diplomats and lawyers from Rusesabagina, who said that Rusesabagina continues to have access to food, water and medicine ”.

The State Department spokesman went on to confirm that the Rwandan government “continues to provide access to Mr. Rusesabagina to embassy officials”

The New York Times is a much more powerful media organization than the small San Antonio TV station, and if its editors had requested the US government’s statement on the allegations, the State Department would have responded quickly. The newspaper’s publication, however, chose to treat Rwanda under different rules and was not going to verify the defamation Rusesabagina’s family was giving it to help spread against the country.

This is not the first time that a small newsroom has exposed the complicity of the mainstream Western media not only to help promote anti-Rwanda propaganda, but also for their sustained efforts to defend the terrorists who strive to provoke bloodshed in the country, once the law catches up with them.

Last year, René Mugenzi, a prominent member of the terrorist organization of the National Congress of Rwanda (RNC), was convicted and sentenced to 27 months in prison by a United Kingdom court (United Kingdom ) for stealing money from the church amounting to 220,000 pounds.

Then Mugenzi, who for years presented himself as a “human rights activist”, with the help of the British media, including the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), through his lawyers, obtained a court injunction ordering the media not to report on the case. He claimed his life would be in danger because Rwanda was supposed to have him.

British media, complicit in building Mugenzi’s fake profile, conveniently chose not to challenge the gag order, as they attempted to dissociate themselves from a criminal they were helping to back up and who they willingly had promoted the false allegations against Rwanda.

Similar to the small San Antonio, Texas TV station, which in this case did what newsrooms are supposed to do, and in the process exposed the fraud that Rusesabagina’s family and their supporters perpetrated against the international community, it took a small-circulation publication, the Daily Press in Norfolk, UK, for Mugenzi’s court order to be overturned, exposing him for the criminal he is, after investigations of his reporters revealed that his claims that he feared for his personal safety were a bunch of lies he used to play with the UK system.

[email protected]

Source link

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.