Criticism is mounting against media outlets aligned with the legitimacy government for allegedly exaggerating military advancements and declaring victories not corroborated by battlefield realities, thereby potentially undermining the war effort and public trust.
Reports indicate that some media platforms are prematurely announcing territorial gains and successful operations, rushing to publish breaking news that often fails to align with the actual situation on the ground. This trend extends beyond mere professional oversights, with warnings that inflated military reporting could burden forces and erode confidence in official sources, potentially benefiting adversaries by exploiting discrepancies between declarations and events.
Journalist Nabil Al-Sufi sharply criticized the media's performance in the West Coast battles, asserting that some outlets prioritize their own metrics, follower engagement, and political allegiances over conveying the genuine needs of combatants and the front lines. He cited instances where appeals for support for soldiers were published alongside reports of "overwhelming victories," even as official channels withheld information due to military operational security. Al-Sufi also pointed to inaccuracies in reporting the Giants forces' arrival at Dhubab Airport, noting that media accounts described broad territorial control while on-field data was more precise.
The confusion between Dhubab, Bab al-Mandab, and the strait itself, as highlighted by Al-Sufi, suggests a lack of geographical understanding among some media outlets, leading to a conflated narrative of a comprehensive victory. He emphasized that ground battles are costly in terms of blood and effort, and that media exaggeration offers little tangible support to fighters, potentially adding to their burden by presenting a distorted reality.
Fellow journalist Bassim Janani echoed these concerns, condemning the official legitimacy media for reporting the entry into Mokha based on a military source, only for subsequent battlefield developments to contradict the widely disseminated narrative. Janani stressed that the "military source" designation has become a substitute for verification, particularly for sensitive military information. The propagation of inaccurate reports, he warned, quickly transforms into a widely accepted narrative with difficult-to-correct implications.
Activist Muqbil Mohammed further criticized the exaggeration of battlefield developments by pro-legitimacy media, noting conflicting reports of controlling Mokha versus limited progress around Bab al-Mandab. He argued that such exaggerations do not serve the legitimacy cause but can create embarrassing situations as the gap between media pronouncements and ground reality becomes apparent, especially with the ease of information verification through multiple sources.
Journalist Salah Bin Laghbar expanded the critique, referencing his experience covering battles. He stated that military progress is verifiable on the ground through clear geographical markers, emphasizing that military control must be confirmed by the terrain itself. Bin Laghbar considers credibility in wartime not a luxury but a strategic asset, warning that its dissipation through false information not only erodes public trust but also provides adversaries with free propaganda material. He cautioned that the dissemination of incorrect information from official institutions, subsequently picked up by international agencies, poses a risk beyond journalistic error by undermining confidence in the issuing bodies.
Activist Abdullah Al-Jaidi went further, suggesting that part of the media, journalists, and activists loyal to the legitimacy government have contributed to the problem through inflated coverage, glossing over failures, and manufacturing illusory victories that quickly collide with reality. He contends that this "illusion selling" not only misinforms the public but also impacts the war effort itself by substituting imagined triumphs for realistic assessments and preparedness.
