I'm guessing at an incentive to make a well-known publication have questionable motives will help smaller news outlets get a chance to compete with the bigger giants. Multiple various resources help ground the piece, though one is an old interview clip on youtube with only 3k views, so not sure if I can trust each resource is saying what the article wants it to say. None of the evidence of Reuters performing business in Egypt looks like a smoking gun of specific destructive motivation, so look like red herrings. Slants are accused but no examples provided, acknowledgement of skewed numbers were reported by Reuters and yet publishing the military soundbyte is damning enough? So straw man issues there, even though Reuters did report on how numbers might be inaccurate. No evidence provided in article is clear enough for the nefarious accusation.