[1] The organization indirectly gained public prominence as a source of news and analysis about the Muslim world, following the September 11 attacks and the subsequent war on terror by the Bush administration.

According to Political Research Associates, MEMRI's translated articles and its commentary are routinely cited in national media outlets in the United States, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, while analyses by MEMRI staff and officers are frequently published by right-wing and neoconservative media outlets such as National Review, Fox News, Commentary, and the Weekly Standard.

Political Research Associates writes that both critics and supporters of MEMRI note its increasing influence in shaping perceptions of the Middle East.

The project provides policymakers with translations and footage of anti-Semitic comments made by media personalities, academics, and government and religious leaders.

[40] Brian Whitaker, then the Middle East editor for The Guardian, wrote in a public email debate with Carmon in 2003, that his problem with MEMRI was that it "poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation".

and that MEMRI's website does not mention Carmon's employment for Israeli intelligence, or Meyrav Wurmser's political stance, which he described as an "extreme brand of Zionism".

In an interview with the Muslim-American newspaper In Focus in 2007, he said MEMRI uses "the same sort of propaganda techniques as the Nazis" and "take[s] things out of context in order to do personal and political harm to people they don't like".

"[43] Former head of the CIA's counterintelligence unit, Vincent Cannistraro, said that MEMRI "are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud.

"[44][45] Laila Lalami, writing in The Nation, states that MEMRI "consistently picks the most violent, hateful rubbish it can find, translates it and distributes it in email newsletters to media and members of Congress in Washington.

[46][47] Assaf David of the Truman Institute wrote that MEMRI distorts the Arab world by publishing the writings of extremists while ignoring moderates.

According to the two-minute video, which was a heavily condensed version of the Sheikh's 36-minute speech delivered in Adelaide on 22 March, Hussein called Australian and American soldiers "Crusader pigs" and stated "O Allah, count the Buddhists and the Hindus one by one.

"[50] MEMRI's rendition moved Liberal senator Cory Bernardi to write to the Police Commissioner charging that under Australian anti-terrorism laws, the video clip was "hate speech", and requesting that action be taken against Hussein.

While admitting that the Sheikh was emotional and used strong words, the Centre stated that the speech was delivered in relation to rape cases in Iraq, the birth defects due to use of depleted uranium, and the Burmese Buddhist massacre.

[55][40][47][56][57] Following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, Al Jazeera invited Hani al-Sebai, an Islamist living in Britain, to take part in a discussion on the event.

[58] For one segment of the discussion in regard to the victims, MEMRI provided the following translation of al-Sebai's words: The term "civilians" does not exist in Islamic religious law.

[59]Al-Sebai subsequently claimed that MEMRI had mistranslated his interview, and that among other errors, he had actually said: There is no term in Islamic jurisprudence called "civilians".

[46] Several British newspapers subsequently used MEMRI's translation to run headlines such as "Islamic radical has praised the suicide bomb attacks on the capital"[60] prompting al-Sebai to demand an apology and take legal action.

[62] Barakat claims an essay he wrote for the Al-Hayat Daily of London titled "The Wild Beast that Zionism Created: Self-Destruction", was mistranslated by MEMRI and retitled as "Jews Have Lost Their Humanity".

[63] Fellow Georgetown faculty member Aviel Roshwald accused Barakat in an article he published of promoting a "demonization of Israel and of Jews".

'[66][67]Naomi Sakr, a professor of Media Policy at the University of Westminster has charged that specific MEMRI mistranslations, occurring during times of international tension, have generated hostility towards Arab journalists.

[68] In an email debate with Carmon, Whitaker asked about MEMRI's November 2000 translation of an interview given by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to Al-Ahram al-Arabi.

"[40] In 2003 John Lloyd defended MEMRI in the New Statesman: One beneficial side effect of the focus on the Middle East is that we now have available much more information on the discourse of the Arab world.

The most powerful medium for this is (naturally) a Washington-based think-tank, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), started in 1998 by the former Israeli intelligence officer and Arabist Yigal Carmon.

MEMRI and Carmon have been accused of selecting the worst of a diverse media: however, the sheer range of what is available weakens that criticism, as does support for the initiative by Arab liberals.

[71] Friedman has written in The New York Times that "what I respect about Memri is that it translates not only the ugly stuff but the courageous liberal, reformist Arab commentators as well."

"[73][verification needed] Jay Nordlinger, the managing editor of National Review, wrote in 2002: Wading or clicking through MEMRI's materials can be a depressing act, but it is also illusion-dispelling, and therefore constructive.