Despite the current ferocious tendentious media campaigns against the Kingdom, they seem to be lacking the simplest standards of logic, a matter that turned their results into gains in favor of the Kingdom.
Often, the propaganda campaigns, in all types, take a form that primarily excludes them from appearing as declared targeting. This is not what is happening now, as TV channels, news agencies and newspapers have devoted most of their publications and programs to talk about the Saudi affair and to try to incite international opinion against the Kingdom. These channels pick up an event that has already happened or creating an event that has not happened to begin weaving tales, telling lies and hosting figures known for their hostility to the Kingdom and other figures who are paid to attack the Kingdom.
The talk here is not about Qatar's Al-Jazeera or Iranian or Muslim Brotherhood channels, but about international media which are supposed to be eminent in addition to their long history and name which have been created by strict professional controls that turned them into independent schools in the world of press. Events have shown the fall of the values of these media and their tremendous decline in the accurate professional standards that distinguished them in obtaining information prior to publication or transmission.
A newspaper such as The New York Times, a prestigious name in the world of international press, takes a hostile policy towards the Kingdom for reasons going back to their owners and editorial staff. This could be understood and coexisted with it. However, no one has ever expected that this newspaper would adopt its position based on a tweet from anonymous identifiers or unreliable sources. 160 years of hard press work have not gone for the newspaper's editors to pick news posted by Brotherhood's accounts about the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey to build news that have been posted by these accounts and made the New York Times as source.
The news-laundry operation, in which The New York Times has engaged itself, forced the newspaper's editors to delete and modify, a matter which could have been avoided if it had applied one of the press work's priorities which is verifying information and its source before imparting it, let alone adopting it as a constant fact that The New York Times is responsible for.