A few months ago, Reuters retracted a report about the sound of explosions heard in Dubai, acknowledging it could not verify what they actually were. Now come claims in The Wall Street Journal about financial and political demands by the Houthis, which Ambassador Raed Qarmli, the Saudi Foreign Ministry’s Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy, categorically denied. He also reminded the authors that Yemen has an internationally recognised government. One report resulted in a retraction, the other in a denial. But the two are not the same.
There are several explanations why news agencies get stories wrong or mislead their audience. The first is that when journalists report on distant countries—especially when they rely on websites and social media rather than sources they know and have vetted—the stakes are higher. There is nothing wrong with reporting from afar, but the correspondent has a duty to compensate for his/her distance by utilising a broader network of contacts and sources.
A journalist who merely monitors social media posts and presents them as exclusive information is a stenographer, not a journalist. In times of conflict, ten people may repeat a claim that originated from a single source. Unless the correspondent traces the claim to its origin, those ten voices may be mistaken for ten independent sources, lending a false or misleading claim credibility. Other outlets then proliferate the account on the back of the international organisation’s name.
But even correspondents close to events can get it wrong. Many exhibit signs of confirmation bias. This is when they consciously or subconsciously seek out sources with similar views, or let their own personal views shape their reporting. While we cannot know every reporter's intentions, we can examine their choices: whom they consult, whom they exclude, which accounts they accept without scrutiny and which responses they habitually treat with suspicion.
A less sinister reason for misleading reporting is simply that the journalists or their supervising editors are not experienced or qualified. In Yemen, for example, knowing troop deployments and commanders' names is not enough. A journalist must grasp the difference between a militia’s control of territory and its purported right to represent the country. Reporting the demands of armed groups without accounting for the internationally recognised government reveals more than missing details; it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.
