The international media attention surrounding the case of Rose Kabuye seems to be ebbing. She now awaits trial in a French court after being released on bail more than a week ago.

Reporting about Rose Kabuye by many media outlets shows one thing. Many commentators and reporters on international wires have continued to report that the downing of the Falcon 50, airliner carrying Juvenal Habyarimana triggered the 1994 Genocide against Tutsis.

However, according to many analysts, this is erroneous. Many have argued that the Genocide was not something spontaneous. They say it was well planned in advance.

The stockpiling of weapons especially machetes was a clear indication that something was afoot in the run up to the mass slaughter. Even before that, many prominent anti-Habyarimana politicians were already being eliminated by the regime.

But some commentators do not care about the death of Habyarimana. Some have even written that he deserved to die because he was a mass murderer.

Journalist Andrew Mwenda writes in the Independent Magazine of Uganda that Habyarimana was a mass murderer who deserved to die.

Habyarimana, many argue, presided over the planning process of the Genocide. They add that, even before his death, the forces for which he was commander- in- chief carried out genocidal massacres in many parts of the country.

Even before that, there had been successive genocides in Rwanda starting with 1959. From 1959-1973, Tutsis were killed by extremists.

However, some people either accidentally or deliberately postulate that what happened in 1959 was a cultural revolution. Prominent scholars use this terminology when describing the events of 1959.

But how do or did they arrive at this? This is a question that continues to perplex many. Interestingly, the notion that the shooting down of Habyarimana’s plane triggered the genocide has a lot of currency in the western media.

Many news channels like the BBC continue to use this line despite evidence pointing to the opposite. Many ask questions whether this is a deliberate campaign to revise the history of Genocide or not.

But as the case progresses it remains to be seen if it will change. For example if the case against Kabuye falls apart, what direction will these media outlets take?

Many still wonder whether that kind of reporting, is some kind of official editorial policy and if so what informs such kind of thinking. And what will change such kind of reporting which is seen as biased by some?

Ends