Only just today, the @nytimes published an “editor’s note” on their #Gaza#hospital misreporting:
“On Oct 17, The #NewYorkTimes published news of an explosion at a hospital in Gaza City, leading its coverage w/claims by #Hamas govt ofcls that an Israeli airstrike was the cause & that hundreds of people were dead or injured.
“The report included a large headline at the top of The Times’s website.
“#Israel subsequently denied being at fault & blamed an errant rocket launch by the #Palestinian faction group #IslamicJihad, which has in turn denied responsibility. #American & other #international ofcls have said their #evidence indicates that the rocket came from Palestinian fighter positions.
“The Times’s initial accounts attributed the claim of #Israeli responsibility to #Palestinian ofcls, & noted that the Israeli military said it was investigating the blast. However, the early versions of the #coverage — & the prominence it received in a #headline, #news alert & #socialmedia — relied too heavily on claims by #Hamas, & did not make clear those claims could not immediately be verified. The rpt left readers w/an incorrect impression about what was known &how credible the account was.
“The Times continued to update its coverage as more information became available, reporting the disputed claims of responsibility & noting that the death toll might be lower than initially reported. Within 2 hrs, the headline & other text at the top of the website reflected the scope of the explosion & the dispute over responsibility.
“Given the sensitive nature of the news during a widening conflict, & the prominent promotion it received, Times editors should have taken more care w/the initial presentation, & been more explicit about what information could be verified. Newsroom ldrs continue to examine procedures around the biggest breaking news events — incl’g for the use of the largest headlines in the digital report — to determine what additional safeguards may be warranted.”
Add comment