At the same time, there are only so many column inches available, and there's only so much effort (and so many lines) one can devote to the regurgitating the broader context (that's generally covered in other articles they run).
The Guardian has article right next to the cholera article titled 'Blame the Saudis for Yemen's cholera outbreak – they are targeting the people'.
More than two years of fighting between the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi rebels has crippled the country, causing widespread internal displacement, the collapse of the public health system, and leaving millions on the brink of famine.
It does not, however, mention US/UK support for it. I agree it would be better to connect the dismay that this article engenders in the reader with outrage for our support for Saudi Arabia.
It's not so simple. It's all about influence between Iran (which means Iran, Russia etc block) and Saudi Arabia (which means USA, UK etc side block) in Yemen. You can be on one side or on the other, there is no middle ground there. None of the players really cares about Yemen, on this level game is different, there are no "values" besides influence/money.
However the big news in the UK yesterday was about BAE systems not able to keep everyone working and how hoped for orders from Saudi Arabia would save the day.
So the share price of BAE systems and a few death industry Jobs matters more than cholera.
It's the other way around. We need oil, at least for now, so we have to make sure it makes it to the market and Saudis are the major player when it comes to adjusting prices. In exchange, they buy a lot or favors from the power that be...mainly weapons, that provide jobs for US, UK, Germany etc. US could probably overthrow the Saudis in a week if it wanted, and they know.
weasel statement: They would be fighting anyway, oil or no oil, US or no US involvement.