4 ms·

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.

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 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4172yl0l1o Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/pictures/iranians-pray-rain-drought-crisis-worsens-2025-11-14/ 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_News

jprd 11mo ago
BBC == OK Arab News == Not OK What is your opinion on Al Jazeera then?
tgma 11mo ago
BBC is UK propaganda and fine; Arabnews is Saudi propaganda and not fine. Who are you to judge?
- captain_coffee 11mo ago
  BBC, literally one of the most reliable news sources in the world is according to you "UK propaganda". Feel free to expand on this
  - tgma 11mo ago
    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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."
    - rileymat2 11mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_News 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.
      - tgma 11mo ago
        > 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.
        rileymat2 11mo ago
        Widely held: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_independence The corporate governance is significantly different as well.
        tgma 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        rileymat2 11mo ago
        I'd make the case that the resignations are a good thing. It shows a commitment to journalism as a profession.
        tgma 11mo ago
        Sure, one can debate this ad nauseam. I would even concede that on average, BBC is perhaps more reliable than Arab News. However, if your standard is ArabNews not OK because Saudi government funds it, but BBC OK, you might just as well say it in plain English that you simply don't like the opinion of the Saudi government but on board with the UK's (which is a stance that by the way I mostly share, but refuse to preach on a neutral forum like Hacker News as policy.) I would not be surprised that for some stories, Arab News would be a better source than BBC.
  - rileymat2 11mo ago
    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.
    - y-c-o-m-b 11mo ago
      "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).
  - LtWorf 11mo ago
    BBC is propaganda coated with a thin paint of respectability.
- y-c-o-m-b 11mo ago
  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.
  - tgma 11mo ago
    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.

jprd 11mo ago

BBC == OK Arab News == Not OK What is your opinion on Al Jazeera then?

tgma 11mo ago

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

captain_coffee 11mo ago
BBC, literally one of the most reliable news sources in the world is according to you "UK propaganda". Feel free to expand on this
- tgma 11mo ago
  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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."
  - rileymat2 11mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_News 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.
    - tgma 11mo ago
      > 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.
      - rileymat2 11mo ago
        Widely held: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_independence The corporate governance is significantly different as well.
        tgma 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        rileymat2 11mo ago
        I'd make the case that the resignations are a good thing. It shows a commitment to journalism as a profession.
        tgma 11mo ago
        Sure, one can debate this ad nauseam. I would even concede that on average, BBC is perhaps more reliable than Arab News. However, if your standard is ArabNews not OK because Saudi government funds it, but BBC OK, you might just as well say it in plain English that you simply don't like the opinion of the Saudi government but on board with the UK's (which is a stance that by the way I mostly share, but refuse to preach on a neutral forum like Hacker News as policy.) I would not be surprised that for some stories, Arab News would be a better source than BBC.
- rileymat2 11mo ago
  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.
  - y-c-o-m-b 11mo ago
    "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).
- LtWorf 11mo ago
  BBC is propaganda coated with a thin paint of respectability.
y-c-o-m-b 11mo ago
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.
- tgma 11mo ago
  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.