By posting a photo of the Polisario's right of reply in The Washington Post, journalists at Radio Algeria International (a public broadcaster) must have thought to themselves : «We nailed it!» But what's the real story? Did they actually make an impact? On April 13, 2025, as Yabiladi reported, The Washington Post published an investigative piece about efforts by Syria's new government to disrupt an arms smuggling route used by Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah. The report mentioned a possible involvement of the Polisario Front in the operation. However, it did not include any response from the Sahrawi separatist group. A week later, on April 20, the American newspaper issued a clarification in a «Correction» box, acknowledging that it should have requested a comment from the Polisario. The right of reply was then granted, including a direct quote from the movement, which denied any ties to Iran and described the allegations as «not only implausible but it is an insult». This kind of editorial correction is standard journalistic practice, allowing the accused party to present their version of events — without endorsing their claims. How Algerian State Media Interpreted It Just hours after the correction was published, Algerian public radio posted a triumphant statement on X (formerly Twitter), claiming that The Washington Post had «recognized» the Polisario's innocence. The tweet stated that this supposed recognition dealt a blow to Morocco. But this interpretation misrepresents a basic journalistic principle: the right of reply. At no point does the newspaper endorse the Polisario's statement. On the contrary, the remarks are placed within quotation marks and clearly attributed to the group. A Misunderstanding of Legal and Journalistic Ethics In journalism, the right of reply is a standard procedure meant to ensure fair and balanced reporting. When The Washington Post writes: «The Polisario Front militant group denies ties of any kind to Iran, saying that to 'suggest that Polisario fighters would abandon their decades-long struggle against Moroccan occupation in favor of distant conflicts in which they have no stake is not only implausible — it is an insult…'» It is reporting a claim — not taking a position. The newspaper remains neutral and does not comment on the veracity of the statement. This distinction is also clear in Google's search results, where the meta-description reads: «The Polisario Front, which is seeking independence for Western Sahara, denies ties of any kind to Iran…» The use of the verb denies underscores that this is a claim, not an established fact. A Fragile Line of Defense Substantively, the Polisario's argument — that its fighters couldn't possibly be involved in a «distant» conflict because they are focused on the Western Sahara — is weak. History is full of examples of revolutionary or independence movements providing logistical or military support to allied regimes far from their own battlefield, whether due to shared ideology, strategic interests, or regional alliances. Claiming to lead a «liberation» movement doesn't preclude involvement in broader regional dynamics — especially in the complex geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. In short, The Washington Post did not exonerate the Polisario Front. The investigation remains online. What the newspaper did was apply a core ethical standard: allowing the accused party to speak. To present this right of reply as a declaration of innocence is misleading — a classic move in communication strategies during conflicts, where every word, quote, and correction becomes a tool of narrative warfare. Even more surprising is how Algerian state radio portrayed this as a «media victory» for the Polisario, simply on the basis of a standard editorial correction. If the goal was to disprove The Washington Post's findings, the role of journalists should have been to conduct proper fact-checking. Conclusion: They didn't.
