If they give a proscribed terrorist organization an actual platform WITHOUT pushback then they are biased. CNN or NYT will bring Israeli government and IDF spo

If they give a proscribed terrorist organization an actual platform WITHOUT pushback then they are biased. CNN or NYT will bring Israeli government and IDF spox but also ask hard questions about civilian casualties (and Israelis get annoyed by that) and/or bring in a spox on the Palestinian or activist side. Yet MintPress does the opposite by providing fawning coverage for them and other movements that were previously allied with the Assad government. PBS has interviewed the Houthis via Frontline, yet also made sure to also push harsh and tough questions about their atrocities. MintPress didn't. > Is this article incorrect in itself I do not trust it. At some point you need to also validate whether your source is credible or not. And MintPress simply is not a credible source. Edit: Cannot reply below, so I will say this about the BBC - they try to be unbiased where possible and have reported on Houthi war crimes such as child soldiers on multiple occasions. A credible news source is a source that tries to reduce it's bias where possible and rectify by giving multiple different sides a voice Otherwise, it's an agenda-driven platform.