The New York Times, the lie machine that falsified history, returns to fabricate crimes against the RSF

The New York Times (NYT) investigation into war crimes attributed to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) is crammed full of loopholes, slander, and lack of integrity. The lack of independence of sources is the first aspect that strikes at the credibility of the report, which the newspaper called an “Investigative Report,” while -in reality- it can only amount to being an ambush and an act of malicious targeting.

Media investigations of this particular grade often rely on human rights organizations or local sources that are perhaps biased toward a certain party to the conflict.

There is a strong possibility that the testimonies used were provided by parties with a direct interest in tarnishing the reputation of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Which -in turn- invokes the question of: How can we verify any funding or relationships between these sources and external parties that may seek to influence the narrative? The New York Times (NYT) failed to clarify.

Prior to making any attempts at refuting the report, let us take a few steps back to ponder, as despite the newspaper being one of the most influential in the global media arena, it has precedents that raised questions regarding its credibility and bias in covering some events.

Let’s start with the (Judith Miller) scandal and the newspaper’s exploitation by Intelligence. In detail, during the period prior to the invasion of Iraq, the (NYT) newspaper was severely criticized for its role in publishing false information based on leaks from the American Intelligence Service.

Journalist Judith Miller exploited her relationship with government officials to publish reports that lacked verification, which contributed to misleading public opinion about the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

In reference to the aforementioned information, in (2002 – 2003), the (NYT) greatly supported the George Bush Administration’s allegations in regards to Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, which contributed to preparing American and international public opinion for the invasion of Iraq. Later, it was revealed that these allegations were incorrect, and the (NYT) newspaper apologized for its role in publishing misleading reports based on unverified intelligence information.

In the (1930s), journalist (Walter Duranty) published reports that downplayed famines in Ukraine and justified Stalin’s policies, which led to severe criticism of the (NYT) for turning a blind eye to the crimes of the Soviet regime.

The (NYT) was also criticized for its implicit support for US military interventions in countries such as Vietnam and Afghanistan, where it was accused of failing to provide balanced accounts of the damage caused by these interventions.

Its major editorial lapses were repeated, such as the incident that forced the newspaper to apologize in (2015) for a report alleging the involvement of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in purchasing a luxury mansion, only to layer uncover that the story lacked evidence.

In its coverage of political events in Latin America, the New York Times was criticized for its clear bias against leftist governments. For example, in its reports on Venezuela and Cuba, the newspaper focused heavily on the crises in these countries without mentioning the role of US sanctions in further exacerbating these crises. This one-sided coverage raises valid questions regarding the extent of the newspaper’s independence in covering issues related to US interests.

Incidentally, in regards to climate change reports and the distortion of facts practiced in these reports; and while the New York Times promotes itself as a newspaper that supports environmental issues, it has been criticized for publishing reports that contain exaggerations or inaccurate information about the effects of climate change, as some reports have been accused of exaggerating environmental disasters without relying on accurate scientific data, which has affected its credibility in this area as well.

Moreover, in regards to concealing information related to political funding, the New York Times newspaper has faced numerous accusations of concealing details related to campaign financing in the United States, and in its reports on politicians who support major institutions, the newspaper avoids highlighting the influence of ‘dark money’ in the electoral process, which reflects a possible bias against candidates.

The fallacy of downplaying human rights issues in China was significant on all accounts; despite the New York Times’ extensive coverage of issues such as the Hong Kong protests, the newspaper has been criticized for its virtually nonexistent coverage of human rights violations in other regions such as (Xinjiang). The observed selectivity in choosing which issues to highlight raises realistic doubts in regards to the existence of a political or economic agenda. The New York Times has also been criticized for downplaying the importance of the internal and local factors that led to the crisis.

In terms of blatantly choosing to ignore international interventions in Africa, and when covering conflicts on the continent, the (NYT) newspaper tends to focus largely on internal divisions, local chaos and violence, while notably ignoring the roles played by foreign powers in fueling these conflicts, whether through military interventions or economic control in addition to their role in destabilizing African countries. In its coverage of Africa’s crises, the New York Times adopts a rather superficial attitude, as the newspaper often presents a stereotypical image of the continent’s countries.

The investigation in which the New York Times condemned the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) contains -as previously noted- major gaps related to the credibility of the evidence provided, bias of sources and the absence of a comprehensive context for the Sudanese conflict; the report relies on video clips and testimonies that are difficult to verify in light of modern technology that facilitates the manipulation of videos and the production of fabricated scenes.

The New York Times relied in its aforementioned report on sources that are ‘non-independent’ and perhaps influenced by parties seeking to tarnish the reputation of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in order to achieve political or military gains.

The investigation focused as well on crimes attributed to the Rapid Support Forces, ignoring the violations committed by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and other parties to the conflict, which raises numerous questions in regards to the newspaper’s neutrality and its presentation of the full context of the Sudanese conflict.

The New York Times failed to provide concrete forensic evidence such as independent autopsy reports or physical evidence to support the accusations, and the timing of the publication of the report itself raises doubts as it coincides with a sensitive stage of the conflict, indicating the possibility that the aim of the report was to exert political pressure or justify foreign intervention.

The absence of independent field investigations combined with the newspaper’s reliance on secondary sources further weakens the credibility of the investigation and increases the possibility of bias towards international parties seeking to direct events in Sudan.

Some of the testimonies relayed in the investigation are contradictory or inconsistent, especially since individual testimonies are often influenced by pressure or intimidation, which requires careful review and ensuring their consistency with the physical evidence.

Additionally, the absence of the Rapid Support Forces’ response -truly- reflects the lack of balance in the report, as the parties concerned weren’t granted the opportunity to defend themselves or present their point of view; the Western press has always provided biased or orientalist coverage when dealing with Third World issues, and the recent report on Sudan may not be an exception to this approach as it lacks the required balance and relies on a narrative that is perhaps misleading if not supported by conclusive and field evidence.

Publishing such allegations without a thorough and independent investigation could negatively impact the possibility of fair trials in the future because the public narrative is based on unsubstantiated conclusions that deem it unreliable.

Based on the aforementioned points, it can be said -with a clear conscience- that the New York Times investigation lacks accuracy and impartiality, as it relies rather heavily on unreliable sources and unverified evidence, which in turn reduces its validity, making it subject to doubts and questions in regards to its credibility and true motives.