[matkoniecz]

Thanks, thanks for revealing that I should trust journalism even less than I thought.

I now noticed that

> The EU has decided to ban Belarusian airlines from European skies

has "decided" not "implemented" or "started", so technically it is matching reality, even if misleading.

[iso1631]

The BBC story is https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57236489

With a headline of "EU agrees new Belarus sanctions after plane arrest"

It states

> The EU has decided to ban Belarusian airlines from European skies after a flight was diverted to Minsk on Sunday and a dissident journalist arrested.

The specific release from the meeting: - calls on the Council to adopt the necessary measures to ban overflight of EU airspace by Belarusian airlines and prevent access to EU airports of flights operated by such airlines;

Seems reasonable reporting to me, the EU has decided to do it, and is now implementing that decision.

Further in the article

> The UK has suspended the operating permit for Belarusian state airline Belavia, and EU leaders have called on member states to take similar action.

That the HN submitter changed the headline is hardly a damning indictment of journalism

(The headline of the .com version was the same at 6:27 GMT)

https://web.archive.org/web/20210525062723if_/https://www.bb...

[calpaterson]

"Cock-up before conspiracy": problem in this case is that journalists do not understand EU process. In fairness to them it is not straightforward and in any field of politics something is said to be "done" at many different junctures: for example when it is politically inevitable, when it is informally agreed, once it has been formally agreed and then, of course, once it has actually been effected.

[stanpinte]

my comment was without political meaning : I have relatives who need to fly to minsk from EU on Saturday for family reasons, I'm just monitoring the legal status.