[input_sh]

> Investigative journalism, I hope so.

I work for one (not involved in the actual stories) and I can guarantee that the process I've seen is pretty meticulous.

> But general journalism...

There's a separation that needs to be done here as well between news and columns / opinion pieces. News are supposed to answer what's known as Five Ws (Who, What, When, Where, Why), while columns/opinion pieces are rarely expected to be held to same standards, are often inaccurate, and subjective by their nature (they are opinion pieces after all). Unfortunately they're almost always published under the same brand, but usually when I see people complaining about journalism, they don't make that distinction.

That isn't to say news in itself is not biased, because even picking what's newsworthy is a process that relies on bias.

[tsegratis]

Thanks. I'm sure you're doing clear work, and being precisely truthful about clear topics

My problem is news like: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55484436

BBC saying 'restore the presidents rule' and 'unity cabinet', but this is the same president whose people said was a dictator and overthrew in the Arab spring

Not following the situation closely, but those five Ws by the BBC look so very strongly in the pocket of arms money and having very little to do with democracy

To the point I would say they are covered in blood, and calling it 'bringing peace.' I wish this was a lone example

[iso1210]

I don't read that at all

The paragraph referring to president:

"Yemen has been devastated by a conflict that escalated in 2015, when a Saudi-led coalition of Arab states launched a military operation to defeat the Houthis and restore President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi's rule. "

> Yemen has been devastated

Objectively true

> by a conflict

There are many reasons but the conflict certainly hasn't helped

> when a Saudi-led coalition of Arab states launched a military operation

Is this wrong? There's a wikipedia page on it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention...

> to defeat the Houthis

"the intervention initially consisted of a bombing campaign on Houthi rebels"

> and restore President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi's rule.

Looks like he has declared President of Yemen in 2012. There are many ruthless rulers who are called "President". "President Putin", "President Mugabe", etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Yemen

Was this not the aim of the Saudi led coalition?

The next paragraph, which is under the "analysis" part

> Yemen's newly formed "unity cabinet" was always going to have a rocky start. But it clearly did not anticipate this disaster when it announced its arrival would be livestreamed on television.

Is the new government that has been created known as a unity government? Seems yes, the piece further explains

"Mr Saeed's new cabinet was formed in an effort to heal a long-running rift between Saudi-backed government forces and militias loyal to the separatist Southern Transitional Council, supported by the United Arab Emirates.

The two sides are supposed to be allies in the civil war against the Houthi movement, which controls the capital Sanaa and much of north-western Yemen."

Explaining the name "unity cabinet", it seems to be an effort to unify the non-houti sides.

You may not think it's a legitimate government, but it seems to be the one recognised by the international community, whether we like it or not. We recognise all sorts of nasty governments, from Venezuala to North Korea, from Russia to Turkey. I don't see any judgement on which side is "good" or "bad" (or "bad" and "worse" as it may be).

To summarise

Who -- Houti Rebels

What -- attacked an airport

When -- Yesterday

Where -- Aden Airport

Why -- because they are fighting against the internationally recognised government

The BBC has covered the conflict in Yemen a fair amount, here's a story about the background of the rebels.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-31645145

[tsegratis]

> I don't read that at all

You + article are completely correct. That is the problem. Since correctness lasts until the final 'why'

Then inverses strongly

How can locals be 'rebels' and the Saudi/UAE led forces be legitimate??

--

The last BBC link you placed was impressive and accurate. It ends

> The Gulf states and the US appear intent upon denying Ansar Allah international recognition and supporting Mr Hadi's claim to leadership

Gulf states are Sunni, Ansar + Houthi's are Shia. The 'unity' government the BBC refers to is 'unity' because it unites two fractious Sunni governments... Definitely not unity because it unites or represents the people of Yemen!

The war is Sunni countries attacking a Shia people. This bombing is a response to that

The Houthi 'rebels' have held the capital for years. Why are they able to do that in the face of Saudi led bombing campaign? Because they have the support of the people in that area

Nuances yes. But government legitimacy here is I assure you based on how much Gulf states pay for arms, and BBC + ourselves whitewashing the why

[iso1210]

> government legitimacy here is I assure you based on how much Gulf states pay for arms

The BBC isn't making any judgement here on who is right and who is wrong, and I think it's unfair to paint people like Lyse Doucet, Darren Conway, Marie Colvin, and other journalists who put their lives on the line to perform journalism in warzones, out as tools of the arms trade because they aren't biased in a way you want.

The entire complaint seems to stem from the BBC using internationally recognised terms to describe the beligerants that the UN uses, and saying this is bias.

If you have a complaint about the UN recognising Yemen as a single country represented by, take it up with your country's ambassador. If you don't think the UN is a legitimate organisation that's fine too, but don't pretend others are biased because they don't agree.

[tsegratis]

Thankyou my friend. I appreciate your reply

I have lived in Yemen during part of the period of the war. I hope I am not denigrating those who do. That is always a great sacrifice on their part, and they should be honored. So thankyou for doing that and reminding me to the same

But you haven't found bias. It is something that I wish I did not believe, but still do. It is something I didn't believe when told, and only sad experiences changed my mind

Does the BBC have reports like this?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/18/the-saudis-cou...

Sure bias and leanings are present everywhere. But bias is maybe the wrong word

Doesn't Chinese news say that China is great, doesn't Russian news say that Russia is great? Should those people believe what they read?

Of course there are differences, but WikiLeaks, Dutch in Congo, UK in Iran, etc, tell us we're good at being evil in the recent past

Have we changed?

In some part yes, I was happy to see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wxeeGz5sVk

[tsegratis]

Upvote from me :)

[tsegratis]

Sorry. Maybe I replied badly. You've carefully looked at those details, which is good of you; and I replied in an unnuanced way

Probably this is better: https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/09/un-experts-urge-security...

Or: https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/04/18/...

Short, but I think it's fair to say the BBC is missing the real facts

I used to think similarly to you. Would of believed the article's conclusion, and imagined we were doing good