Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 22, 2011

"Western" Media Do Not Say Why Egyptians Protest

There is a very good immediate reason why the Egyptians have taken to the street again. This not only in Cairo but also in the governorates of Suez, Alexandria, Ismailia, Assiut and Qena.

Last week the military demanded that its supremacy over the civilian government shall be enshrined in a new constitution and made permanent. Thereby creating a military dictatorship with a democratic facade.

But reading the "western" mainstream media one will not learn about the protests' reason at all. The real, immediate reason of these protests does not exist in those reports. Instead the protesters are depicted as unreasonable delaying the upcoming sham elections.

As Al Arabiya wrote on Friday:

The rally was called to protest a document floated by the government which declares the military the guardian of “constitutional legitimacy,” suggesting the armed forces could have the final word on major policies even after a new president is elected. The document, which includes guiding principles for Egypt's new constitution, also introduces clauses that would shield it from civilian oversight.

Neither the Washington Post, nor the LA Times mention that attempt to keep the military supreme in their write ups about the protests. There is nothing about it in the Guardian, the Associated Press, the Independent and the Telegraph reporting. The only notable exception I find is a blog post by Tony Karon at the Time website.

The Wall Street Journal at least mentions the real issue, if only in a half-sentence down in the twentieth of thirty two paragraphs:

The military, meanwhile, has reneged on pledges of a speedy handover of power to civilian rule and tried to dictate a set of constitutional principles that would preserve sweeping powers for the military in any future government.

It is not only that the media do not write about the attempt of the military to stay in power forever, they even try make the military dictate look reasonable. The worst offender here is the New York Times which prominently sets out the false claim, without any factual support, that:

Liberals regarded [the military] as a hedge against Islamist power.

But further down to the end of the piece various liberal groups are quoted demanding, as they always did, exactly the opposite, the end of the military rule:

Some liberal groups, led by the former diplomat and presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei, called for the military council to give up power immediately to a civilian “government of national rescue.” Other liberals said they sought only the replacement of the current cabinet with a new civilian team with more power to make decisions independently of the council.

But the Times also gives the real reason why there is nothing in the "western" media explaining the protests against a permanent military dictatorship:

[T]he Obama administration considered [the military] a partner that it hoped would help secure American interests.

You see - it is not about the interests of the Egyptians at all. American interests are above the will of the Egyptian people therefore the military assault on their will and interests, to be free of permanent military rule, will not be mentioned at all.

The people in the "west" are not supposed to know what the revolution in Egypt really is about. The few who read The Arabist, The National, Al-Akhbar or Al Jazeera will learn what is happening in Egypt. Those who stick to the "western" mainstream media will not.

Posted by b on November 22, 2011 at 7:01 UTC | Permalink


In the West or in the Anglo-saxon world ? current article does explain what it is about (linked from the front page):
(albeit from a Jerusalem based correspondent…)

Posted by: Philippe | Nov 22 2011 7:57 utc | 1

@Phillipe - I scanned German sites too. They do not mention the issue either.

Posted by: b | Nov 22 2011 8:33 utc | 2

From the BBC's front page " 22 November 2011 Last updated at 09:51 " (that's GMT) item "Egypt activists urge mass protest" goes to

"....The military council produced a draft document setting out principles for a new constitution, under which the military and its budget could be exempted from civilian oversight.

..... Many people fear the military plans to hold on to the reins of power, whatever the outcome."

Posted by: sam_m | Nov 22 2011 10:10 utc | 3

Mr. Cartalucci has an on-topic post:

Posted by: no6ody | Nov 22 2011 13:17 utc | 4

Al Jazeera.....really? Sorry, don't trust it either, even though on this note they may offer something more accurate than most of the other propagandists, they are hardly a reliable source. In fact, even worse, because their clever misdirection is more nuanced than the ridiculously transparent Western MSM.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 22 2011 13:18 utc | 5

Well, look at the bright side. They are not mentioning large protests in Eastern Saudi Arabia (with 3 demonstrators killed) at all. I wonder how many need to be killed to earn a mention?

Posted by: Lysander | Nov 22 2011 13:45 utc | 6

I wonder how many protest are happening around the planet right now? Israelis are protesting, Americans are protesting, Arabs everywhere are protesting... maybe it would be easier to list the folks NOT protesting?


Posted by: DaveS | Nov 22 2011 14:32 utc | 7

Actually, it's about Israel. Israel demands a non-representative and easily-bribed government in Egypt. The USA and its toady Zionist-friendly media are a big part of this counter-revolution; they have their marching orders and are carrying them out.

Posted by: elucidation | Nov 22 2011 14:40 utc | 8

Obama is supporting military rulers in Egypt probably because Egyptian muslim brotherhood is more pro-Iran than US government expected.

Posted by: nikon | Nov 22 2011 15:05 utc | 9

"Obama is supporting military rulers in Egypt probably because Egyptian muslim brotherhood is more pro-Iran than US government expected"

Well, there ya go. See my comment, #5, on the "Why they are fighting...." thread.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 22 2011 15:22 utc | 10

probably because Egyptian muslim brotherhood is more pro-Iran than US government expected.

....should read....

probably because Egyptian muslim brotherhood is more pro-Iran than US government told them to be.

Let's face it....the Brotherhood is just too convenient.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 22 2011 15:38 utc | 11

Its inevitable. The only tack that the posturing fraud, (Obama), can take is to figure out a way to demonize the protestors. Never mind that these are the self-same protestors he was so recently lauding as a tyrannized people seeking to free themselves from oppression.

Meanwhile, the DC right-wing will capitalize, with a myriad of Fox News episodes of "See, we told ya so!".

Anyone that is proud to be an American these days is either an idiot, or is not bothering to inform themselves. This CANNOT continue and arrive at a happy ending. In the workplace I ply my trade, the kind of criminality, incompetency, immorality, dishonesty, and malfeasance that is displayed in Washington DC would result in massive firings. These sacks of shit are running our country over the abyss, and I really don't see anyway to stop them. Slogans, signs, and tents aren't going to do the job. And the electoral process is nothing but a joke, with predetermined results.

We're toast. The only possible positive result will be if we can build something worthwhile out of the rubble we are about to find ourselves buried in.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 22 2011 16:02 utc | 12

Egyptian Muslim brotherhood sacked the Israeli embassy, even tried to attack Saudi embassy, that seem to have taken US and western allies by surprise.

Posted by: nikon | Nov 22 2011 21:38 utc | 13

"Egyptian Muslim brotherhood sacked the Israeli embassy, even tried to attack Saudi embassy, that seem to have taken US and western allies by surprise"

Not at all. It is a perfect component of the Israeli/hasbarist script.

Is it just me, or do others detect a motive behind your terse little contributions?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 22 2011 23:06 utc | 14

Interesting, Nikon, that if one does a google search, one finds that the primary inertia behind the demonization of the Brotherhood, (using the Israeli embassy riots as the yardstick), is provided by sources such as MEMRI, Barry Rubin, the ADL, Free Republic, etc.

Are you here to carry their water?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 22 2011 23:12 utc | 15

It will be quite challenging, in the next coupla hours, to try to keep track of the number of LIES that will ooze out of the mouths of our current crop of RW presidential aspirants as they posture despicably in our nation's living rooms. I hope that "b" will try, though. What a pity our mainstream media celebrities will not make the same attempt.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 23 2011 1:00 utc | 16

Debate's co sponsors??? The AEI, and the Heritage Foundation.

Gee, what a suprise, eh? I bet we are in store for some exceptionally juicy bullshit.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 23 2011 1:05 utc | 17

Well, I hope everybody watched the big stage production last night. High point for me was when Bachman cited the MEMRI mis-translations about what the Pres of Iran has said. I see Steve Clemons at the Atlantic gave her high marks for her performance, calling her "informed". I must agree. She is quite informed about what to say, how to say it, and when to say it. She has obviously studied the script quite carefully.

Ron Paul was pretty much snickered at by the rest of the cast. Sad state of affairs when the most lucid and honest player gets cast as the court jester, isn't it?

What a pathetic display. With the questions coming exclusively from members of AEI and the Heritage Foundation, the actual con-job, the narrative that has created the boogie man we are all expected to believe is lurking under all our beds, was never questioned.

And what is so complicated about this "crime vs terrorism" excuse to shit all over our Constitution and the rule of law? How come I never see anyone ask the obvious question......

"Who gets to decide who the criminal is, and who the terrorist is? Will I wake up tomorrow, and find myself without rights, because some jackass in the FBI has decided to tack a label on me because of something I said on this website?"

Egypt pretty much got left out of the script, didn't it? Gee, wonder why.

Gotta love the "no-fly-zone over Syria" Perry blather, doncha???? The asshole is standing behind a podium, aspiring to be Commander In Chief, casually telling us we oughta commit an act of war against Syria. No big deal, eh? Whats another war. After all, who's countin'?

And how 'bout all the glee and mirth these shining examples of humanity exhibit when they suggest shutting down the Iranian economy? Yep, lets see if we can murder a few hundred thousand innocent non-combatant Iranian children with crippling sanctions, like we did to the Iraqis. Yep, lets punish the Iranian people for something their President didn't really say, and has no intention of doing.

Proud to be an American? Is anyone REALLY waving pompoms for these lying conniving self-serving elitist scumbags? Are we a nation of idiots?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 23 2011 14:51 utc | 18

The comments to this entry are closed.