AIBU to be angry with the BBC for reporting on Afghanistan like this but doing nothing? Trigger warning ⚠️

[Carefultherepercy]

BBC report on absolutely dire situation in Afghanistan where desperate families cannot afford to feed their children. BBC have crossed a line in my opinion and I would be interested to know what others think.

Baby girl, 6 months old, has been sold (for $500) to someone who will marry her to his son. She is going to be given to the man who has bought her when she has learnt to walk. AIBU to expect the BBC intervene at some point here? I know that they are there to report not to offer aid or support but I feel physically sick thinking about what will happen to that baby. $500 is nothing to western journalists; it would still be a "good story" / hard-hitting report if they'd said that this baby had been sold but then they had paid the price in full (her buyer hadn't actually given the family the whole amount) so that the baby could stay with her family.

Kevin Carter was criticised (rightly) for waiting for that vulture to spread its wings instead of picking up the baby and taking her to safety in his famous photograph, because he wanted a better picture. I feel that the BBC has basically done the same thing here. That poor little girl and her poor mother.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-59034650

Also if anyone knows of any REPUTABLE charities which are still allowed into the country to offer aid, I would be grateful to know the details as I understand that most charities have now left.

PS - I appreciate that if word got out then the BBC journalists would be asked to "pay" for loads of children who'd otherwise be sold and that this isn't what they are about- indeed it does say in the report that another family offered them a child for money. But I still feel that they have compromised themselves ethically by reporting on this and leaving her without doing anything (especially as the "buyer" had not even completed the "transaction").

What you are suggesting wouldn't solve anything though because whilst the family would have their money without having to sell the child they will then have to feed and clothe the child which they cant afford to do. These things are never as simple as they seem.

The thing is if they paid for the child and left her with her family, her family would just have sold her again the next day, or the next week

Im not disagreeing with you per se, its just not as clear cut as you make out. The reality is the only way to stop that poor child being sold is to get her out of the country, and as the family arent handing her over immediately how does that work.

I actually feel sorry for the journalistswho will probably be haunted forever from reporting on this, but the situation is just not that straightforward. That poor poor little girl though, its horrific

But if the BBC paid £500 and gave her back to her family I would expect she'd be sold again for another £500 pretty quickly.

If the BBC kept her and removed her from her family they'd be criticised for that too.

There's no right answer.

That's not how the news works. They report, they don't intervene. Where would you draw the line? The best thing they can do - which they have done - is dedicate a long segment of the main evening news to highlighting how dire the situation is. This kind of report often leads to questions in parliament/greater lobbying by charities and hopefully some action.