[keewee7]

When exactly has Western media been soft on Saudi Arabia? They have always been portrayed as a backwards country that oppresses women, kills LGBT people, and since 2014 Saudi Arabia has also been heavily criticized for their war in Yemen. There were also BBC/Channel4 documentaries from more than a decade ago about how Saudi Arabia was indirectly funding the radicalization of Muslims in Europe.

[pas]

There was a brief moment when MBS was seens as the reformer. Then a few minutes later it turns out he gave the order to chop up Jamal the journalist. :|

[Tangurena2]

In the US, media is totally critical of Shiite-majority nations while avoiding any serious critical view of Sunni-majority nations. If that's too opaque, then another way to put it is that the US stigmatizes, sanctions and engages in military interventions in countries that the Saudi government is hostile towards: Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Syria; who are Shiite-majority and Shiite-ruled. The Saudis are themselves Sunni and they treat Shiites as "barely Muslim". Saudi interventions in Oman or Yemen are ignored while Iranian interventions get reported to American audiences.

What is happening in the Middle East is a modern version of the Thirty Year's War. This time, instead of Catholic vs Protestant, it is Sunni vs Shiite.

Disclaimer: I've lived in both Iran and Saudi Arabia - dad was in the oil business.

[chiefalchemist]

Yes. But the Western Media has been soft on those in the West who do business with SA, have political relationships with SA, etc.

For example, even POTUS Trump* got a free pass. His first overseas visit was to SA. Imagine that, of all our allies, he goes to SA first. And yet, not a peep of outrage, even from The Left leaning media. Why would that be?

* This is not an attack of DJT. It simply a perfect example of how (intentionally) blind the media is to those who accept and enable SA.

[ttyprintk]

Coverage of Mr Trump’s financial arrangements with KSA were prominent in coverage of that visit, and what the change could mean. For example, while campaigning he said that KSA was responsible for 9/11 and that it wouldn’t exist without American intervention. The story of his visit as POTUS notably covered this change. Mainstream media covered his son-in-law arranging Saudi funding. Covering change is more important than fanning outrage.

[chiefalchemist]

You missed the point. That is, they are not the only ones. In fact, the whole country (read: US fed gov, and perhaps plenty of states) are in bed - comfortably - with SA.

But as long as they have oil, and we need to kneel before them, our media plays along.

Note: This is not a critique of SA. They're a sovereign nation. I'm not fit to judge (and it's off topic). This is a critique of Western media and it's willingness to look away.

[jasonlotito]

There was quite a bit of discussion about this when it happened. Not sure what news media you were listening to, but there was quite a bit of push back for this decision when it happened from main stream commentators.

[chiefalchemist]

Discussion? Yes, in the usual token sense. But not much more. And if amything it was directed solely at Trump, not the USA's long standing (hypocritial) relationship with SA. That's simply not something the USA MM does.

Regardless, it's one example. The point is, the Western Media is relatively blind to anyone or anything that involves itself with SA. RT probably does a better job.

[ttyprintk]

Were you expecting the media to do more than report?

[chiefalchemist]

Not any more or less than they usually do. I was expecting, if nothing else, consistency in how they use their tactics. But not doing so is just as telling.

Conclusion: We have a conpletely failed Fourth Estate; which means "the democracy" (they're so fond of fearing for) is no democracy - by the text book defintion - at all. The irony is absurd.

[ttyprintk]

I think specific examples would help this back on track. We have a grandparent comment and others in the thread supporting negative media narratives about KSA culture. We have a parent comment about the coverage of US business involvement with KSA and a few commenters supported that with their recollections of the media narrative around conducting business with KSA, not even getting into cultural or military problems.

It’s interesting if your media diet has changed favorably for either KSA culture, military, or business connections. Maybe the career arc of Rex Tillerson, or the investiture arc of Jared Kushner have been sculpted by some outlets and not others.

[Octoth0rpe]

The absurdly uncritical coverage of Biden making up with MBS comes to mind.