The New York Times has admitted they got the reporting wrong, citing the uncommon step of listening to propaganda from the Hamas terrorists who claimed Israel bombed a hospital.
Reports of Israel attacking a hospital in Gaza have now been debunked resulting in much scrutiny on those who claimed the Israeli military was responsible and all of those who reported the wrong information without checking their facts. At the New York Times, the editors began to backpedal as critics pointed out just how wrong the reporting was and the damages they brought upon Israel.
“The Times’s initial accounts attributed the claim of Israeli responsibility to Palestinian officials, and noted that the Israeli military said it was investigating the blast. However, the early versions of the coverage — and the prominence it received in a headline, news alert and social media channels — relied too heavily on claims by Hamas,” the editors said in the apology note “and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified. The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was.”
“The Times continued to update its coverage as more information became available, reporting the disputed claims of responsibility and noting that the death toll might be lower than initially reported. Within two hours, the headline and other text at the top of the website reflected the scope of the explosion and the dispute over responsibility,” the editors said.
The narrative being pushed before the apology was extremely anti-Israel, seemingly pandering to those who launched the terrorist strikes on Israel. The headlines published prior clearly show a bias such as “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say,” then more propaganda, “At Least 500 Dead in Strike on Gaza Hospital, Palestinians Say,” and then lead to, “At Least 500 Dead in Blast at Gaza Hospital, Palestinians Say.”
In the Times editor’s note, they admitted “Given the sensitive nature of the news during a widening conflict, and the prominent promotion it received, Times editors should have taken more care with the initial presentation, and been more explicit about what information could be verified. Newsroom leaders continue to examine procedures around the biggest breaking news events — including for the use of the largest headlines in the digital report — to determine what additional safeguards may be warranted.”
Social media excoriated the New York Times claiming “Too little, too late” as the damage was done by dangerously misleading American’s and publishing what the terrorist group demanded. Even more damaging was the consequences that Israel endured, forcing them to prove their innocence by publishing evidence from sensitive intelligence on the ground, ultimately compromising their sources and methods to the terrorists, all to clear their name.
