In an article published on October 3, The New York Times used a Muslim Brotherhood propaganda channel to attack the Egyptian revolution.
David Kirkpatrick, who has specialized in pieces favoring the Brotherhood, for the last few months, claims a secret video reveals how the Egyptian military are concerned with swaying media to their side.
The New York Times refers to a video posted by YouTube channel “Rassd,” a Muslim Brotherhood propaganda tool with the open goal of ending what they call a “coup” and what 33 million Egyptian demonstrators have defined as revolution against the Ikhwan regime. An observer in Washington said, “For The New York Times not to reveal that the source of the video is an Ikhwan channel is a breach of journalism ethics. They should have cited the source and explained that the video was propaganda material used by the anti-revolutionaries and the supporters of the Ikhwan. Readers would make the determination of the video’s credibility.”
After reviewing the video, an Arab-American expert said, “The video is not a planning strategy; it is a meeting between officers and high ranking officers to discuss public opinion issues. In Washington, policy makers and bureaucrats would call it a strategic communication assessment. Indeed the Egyptian military expressed concerns about media perception, something new in a region where regimes usually aren’t concerned about public opinion.”
Whatever the content of the video is, it can and should be debated by the U.S. public, but only once the video is an open source. It must also be entirely translated, and experts representing all views should be cited and heard. Unfortunately, The New York Times seems to be interested only in the views of the Ikhwan propagandists unleashed against the Egyptian people and military.
The Times can criticize the military at will, if they choose to, but they are obligated to inform their readers about the source of the video, its context, its entire translation, and at least one opposing view.