Hacker News Reader

Comment by y-c-o-m-b | Hacker News Reader

Why are we using "arabnews.com" as a source? It's owned by the Saudi government isn't it? This topic is hitting the front-page of more reputable news sources.

BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4172yl0l1o

Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/pictures/iranians-pray-rain-drought-...

EDIT: yeah, let's not use arabnews as a news source please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_News

View on HN

BBC is UK propaganda and fine; Arabnews is Saudi propaganda and not fine. Who are you to judge?

The BBC is a public service. Saudi Arabia is a country with a LONG list of RECENT human rights abuses, migrant abuses and exploitation, human trafficking, child sex trafficking, and shamelessly slaughtering journalists on foreign soil.

Oh wait… “public service” that destabilizes countries and then you come in and preach such things about human rights when one of the root causes were in fact your nice public service. Just look up how BBC supported the Mullahs against the Shah in Iran in 79.

Re Saudi Arabia “journalist” you do realize he was from a famous intelligence community family. Hardly a simple “journalist.” On balance what MBS has done in terms of freedom and modernization of his country should be appreciated not put down simplistically. Statecraft is not always clean.

The world isn’t that simple as presented to western audiences.

BBC, literally one of the most reliable news sources in the world is according to you "UK propaganda". Feel free to expand on this

The GP felt it is okay to disparage Arab News solely because they are funded by the Saudis, which evidently they don't like. By the same standards, the BBC is literally funded by another state, the UK. Both are state funded media, thus propaganda almost by definition. Remember, propaganda does not have to be false or unreliable. (Although, ironically, BBC right now is in trouble for deceptive portrayal of Trump.)

Hacker News guidelines[1] recommend posting the original source, not BBC over Arab News.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."

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

The newspaper has been described as "a mouthpiece for the Saudi regime" by Qatari-owned The New Arab,[24] and regarded as "reflecting official Saudi Arabian government position" by the Associated Press and Haaretz.[5]

This is much different than the BBC which attempts to maintain independence.

> This is much different than the BBC which attempts to maintain independence.

Independence? That's just your opinion. They are clearly better at marketing than the Saudis.

Widely held: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_independence

The corporate governance is significantly different as well.

You don’t see a difference between a major news outlet from a democratic country which has freedom of speech and an outlet from a religious monarchy which has no notion of free speech or even human rights?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog

> But I must make one thing absolutely clear: there can be no question of the BBC ever giving in to government pressure.

Meaningless.

The UK is run by tyrannical bureaucrats, not the Government.

That's usually not the bar though, many who refuse saudi media due to saudi ownership would be completely okay with al jazeera regardless of qatari ownership, even though both countries have very dubious intentions and government system

UK does not have Freedom of Speech.

It does if your reference point is Saudi Arabia.

The UK is number one for wrong-speech arrests.

Saudi Arabia is one of the world leaders by number of death sentences. They have no qualms with putting you to death or giving you life imprisonment for all sorts of things, including "wrong-speech" in the form of leaving the state religion, or opposing the government. The UK isn't some shining beacon of freedom by Western standards, but it's not even in the same universe as Saudi Arabia.

At least Saudi Arabia has a positive trajectory. SA parents can genuinely see improvements in their kids lifetime.

Compared to whatever tf the UK thinks it’s doing.

Why should UK citizens want their government to invest in infrastructure and defence capabilities if they’re just handing same to radical Islamists.

There was a recent scandal with respect to a misleading quote from a news story about President Trump and the General Director and Head of News resigned.

Yes, it would have been better if they had not spliced the clips so closely together, but that does show a commitment to taking its role seriously.

"Misleading" is a stretch. It's not even controversial imo, because his actual intent was provably the same as what the BBC represented with this stitching. It's a non-issue for all practical purposes and only a problem on paper. The fact the BBC is holding themselves to a higher standard and integrity on this is actually a very good thing here (which you allude to as well).

BBC is propaganda coated with a thin paint of respectability.

BBC == OK Arab News == Not OK

What is your opinion on Al Jazeera then?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com