5 ms·
Unlike the situation in which everyone jumped on the same headline within 5 min before any evidence or footage was even identified and then had to walk back fro
by dogma1138 3y ago
Unlike the situation in which everyone jumped on the same headline within 5 min before any evidence or footage was even identified and then had to walk back from it?
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoAgain, if you read the article, it would probably say X claims Y, not Y is true. Like BBC articles: - Hundreds feared dead at Gaza hospital as Israel denies strike (17 hours ago) - Hospital blast in Gaza City kills hundreds - health officials (18 hours ago) - Dozens killed as Israeli strikes hit southern Gaza refuge areas (1 day ago) The last one is before the hospital was hit. If you have a specific article with a headline, what was it? The only thing I can find is: https://www.thejc.com/news/news/bbc-criticised-after-reporter-says-israel-was-responsible-for-gaza-hospital-blast-4hhWSOB87hbLdrgxTCCJd0 https://www.thejc.com/news/news/bbc-criticised-after-reporte... Which wasn't a headline, rather than in-person live report. And ya, that's still bad, but it isn't as bad as crafting an article with time to think and still coming up with a bad headline. And even in the live reporting, the byline still has attribution ("health officials: at least 500 killed in strike on hospital"), meaning I would need to actually hear what was said live to pass judgement (if they said "health officials are saying that X is true" is quite different from saying "X is true").
- dogma1138 3y agoThe titles were changed after the fact, BBC did had “Israeli strike hits hospital killing over 500” for several hours last night on their main page.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoOk, I'll have to take your word for it, or maybe someone archived it?