Airstrikes hit the runway at Sanaa airport on Monday, and Yemen's internationally recognized government said its own forces did it — to stop an Iranian plane from landing. The Houthis, who hold the capital, promised payback as far as Riyadh and fired missiles at Saudi Arabia. That's the sequence. Hold onto it. * Fox's headline: 'Iran-backed terror proxy Houthis threaten fresh attacks after Yemen airport strike.' The Houthis walk into that sentence wearing three name tags — Iran-backed, terror, proxy — before you even reach what happened. The airstrike that opened this round? Just 'Yemen airport strike.' No author. A strike that occurred, the way weather occurs. * Does Fox know who bombed the airport? Absolutely. It's in the article — paragraph seven. That's where Yemen's defense ministry explains it targeted the runway to keep an Iranian aircraft from touching down. Paragraph seven also contains the punchline: the plane landed anyway, at Hodeidah, down the road. * So the round went: government bombs airport, Houthis threaten payback. Fox's headline plays the tape backwards — the threat becomes the event, the bombing becomes scenery. * Al Jazeera kept the clocks in order: 'Tension rising as Yemen gov't attacks Sanaa airport, Houthis fire missiles.' Actor, action, reaction. Yes, Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar and has its own dog in every Gulf fight — grain of salt included in the price. But that sentence is just chronology doing its job. * And to be clear: the Houthis are US-designated terrorists, and aiming missiles at a civilian airport in Riyadh is not a peace initiative. Nobody in this story is auditioning for sainthood. The question is narrower, and more interesting: why does only one side's opening move get to have a subject? * Labels are free. Chronology costs something — it tells the reader who moved first. Fox spent the whole headline budget on name tags.