Today the NYT tweets: "A Russian news crew brings dashboard cameras to Syrian government tanks"
http://nyti.ms/15CLEHF
via @TheLede", quoting @edwardedark: "amazing footage in HD of the fighting in Darya, Damscus + tank mounted cam from Russian media ANNA - MUST SEE http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=955_1362334323 …"

And indeed, the footage IS amazing: who wouldn't think of an ego-shooter seeing this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cf2-H9Ex8us

Only understandable that NYT spreads it - these pictures out of the tower of a moving and fighting tank are yet un-seen, a thing you experience rarely these days.
But how is it possible that we get real life pictures from a dashboard cam of a fighting tank of the syrian government? Is it, as NYT's Robert Mackey suspects, because of the high popularity of these cams we all learned about lately watching the meteor-footage?
About the origin of the video he just states: "As The Lede reported in January, not much is known about the origins of the Russian network, known as ANNA, but it regularly posts reports on YouTube, occasionally with English subtitles."
Now what is ANNA? If we look at the website, it's clear to see that it's not a network at all, but a news-website devoted to spreading the real truth about the syrian civil war - from a heavily pro-government perspective. The subtitle says it all: "Truth explaining facts | Facts supporting Truth". And the main fact that ANNA spreads again and again is that the freedom fighters are terrorists.
ANNA publishes it's news footage only via youtube, often with english subtitles.
Robert Mackey knows the propagandistic background of ANNA well, he describes it himself in a former article (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/vacation-on-syrias-front-lines-goes-wrong-for-russian-judge/).
Plus he cites the tweet of a syrian man, who calls hims edward dark and says about himself in his twitter profile: "activist working for a free democratic Syria. No to war. No to extremists." But who, in his tweets, only talks about the rebels as "terrorists". And who promotes the video, describing it's footage as "awsome".

Nevertheless, the NYT sends the pictures from such a dubious source to its over 7 million followers - because they are so "awsome", and despite they are propaganda.

Now what makes those real-life images propaganda? Let's start with the titel: The russian title of the tank video is: "The doom of a tank crew in action. Remember the heros forever." Okay, that's clear.

Then: the fight from the tank-perspective is per se a devilish twist: As we see the tank burst from the claustrophobic embedded perspective, we feel that the rebels outside are far more powerful and threatening as the tanks in a civilian town are in the first place.

And, most important, at the end of the clip we see the rebels themself, bazookas behind them. And then, the voice over explains dramatically ,that for the attack on the government tank RPG-29 "Vampire" Bazookas have been used, and that these weapons have been made in Russia.
He asks questions: How can it be that friends of Russia are attacked with russian weapons? Why doesn't supply russia the syrian army with weapons to protect their tanks from these weapons? Who is guilty of giving these weapons to the rebels? And the voice over concludes: "It's the aim of the terrorists to sow fear. But they didn't succeed today - the brothers in arms of the fallen crew swore revenge and not to have mercy with the foe."