For the last few months, The New York Times has been churning out some of the most outrageous falsehoods and anti-Rwanda propaganda, then early this month a little-known television station in San Antonio, Texas put the publication to shame after fact-checking the latest false and malicious allegations against the government of Rwanda. On June 5, 2021, The New York Times published a story accusing authorities in Kigali of denying food and medicine, Paul Rusesabagina an inmate on trial on charges of terrorism. The entire fiction is based on information provided by Mr Rusesabaginas family who reside in San Antonio, Texas. Indeed, the allegations arent dissimilar to the familiar smear that the family and their foreign sponsors have been channelling through that newspaper and other Western media outlets since August 2020, when he was arrested and arraigned in court. Indeed, within the news media the family and supporters have identified individual journalists who are routinely doing the hatchet job. The New York Times has a full-fledged bureau in San Antonio, whose chief happens to be a criminal justice reporter. Its true media houses assign certain court stories to particular reporters for the duration of the trial. In this case, though, it wasnt about the trial which would have required someone who has been covering the case to do a follow-up. Like politics, news is local and when people have a story they want published, they reach out to their local reporter. Therefore, since the story was initiated and relayed by people in San Antonio, Rusesabaginas family could easily have taken their story to the New York Times criminal justice reporter in their hometown. Instead, what comes across as a paid-for advertisement regurgitating all kinds of lies which Rusesabaginas family and other anti-Rwanda groups have been putting out was dispatched by Abdi Latif Dahir, the newspapers reporter in Nairobi. Clearly, he forwarded to his editors a handout 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 sign off on such a lop-sided story if it were written about the United States government. If it ever landed on their desk, they would first check with Washington. However, like all Western news media seeking to reinforce certain stereotypes of what their audiences have been conditioned to expect, the New York Times makes no effort to find out what Kigalis position is with regard to the allegations. Nor does it seek the views of any third party that has interest in Rusesabaginas case. While mainstream Western media outlets have constantly helped promote the anti-Rwanda narrative, there have been cases where relatively small players have tried to look beyond what such sources as Rusesabaginas family and their allies were peddling. KSAT12 News, a small television station in San Antonio had seen the statement put out by Rusesabaginas family and their foreign backers, that contained the allegations and set out to work on the story. Not only did the KSAT 12 News quote a statement released by Rwanda Correctional Services, dismissing the allegations, it also reached out to what it deemed a reliable third party to establish the truth. Where the New York Times chose to publish the false claims without asking questions, the television station spoke to the State Department seeking clarification. Washington promptly refuted the lies, telling the news station that the US ``Embassy in Kigali spoke with Rwandan authorities, as well as Belgian diplomats and Rusesabaginas lawyers, who have stated that Rusesabagina continues to have access to food, water and medication. The State Department Spokesperson went on to confirm that the government of Rwanda continues to provide access to Mr Rusesabagina to Embassy officials The New York Times is a much more powerful media organisation than the small television station in San Antonio, and if its editors had sought the US government statement on the allegations, the State Department would have responded in quick order. The newspaper publication, however, has elected to treat Rwanda by different rules and wasnt going to verify whatever smear Rusesabaginas family was handing it to help spread against the country. Its not the first time a small newsroom has exposed mainstream Western medias complicity in not only helping promote anti-Rwanda propaganda but also their sustained efforts to defend terrorists who have been working to cause bloodshed in the country, once the law catches up with them. Last year, Rene Mugenzi, a prominent member of the Rwanda National Congress (RNC) terrorist organization, was convicted and handed a 27-months prison sentence by a United Kingdom (UK) court after he stole church money amounting to 220,000 pounds. Then Mugenzi who, for years, had been portraying himself as human rights activist, with help of the news media in the UK, including the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), through his lawyers secured a court injunction ordering the news media not to report on the case. He claimed his life would be in danger because Rwanda was purportedly out to get him. The British media which were complicit in building Mugenzis fake profile conveniently chose not to challenge the gag order, as they tried to disassociate themselves from a criminal they helped prop up, and whose false allegations against Rwanda they had willingly promoted. Similar to the small television station in San Antonio, Texas which in this case did what newsrooms are supposed to do, and in the process exposed the fraud that Rusesabaginas family and their supporters have been perpetrating on the international community, it took a small circulation publication, the Daily Press in Norfolk, UK to have Mugenzis court order revoked, exposing him for the criminal that he is, after its reporters investigations revealed that his claims that he feared for his personal were safety were a pack of lies he had been using to game the British system.
