4 ms·

Reuters, Sky, PBS, CBS, etc. don't make any specific accusations about who was responsible in any articles I could find - they all report both accusations for w

by 542458 3y ago

Reuters, Sky, PBS, CBS, etc. don't make any specific accusations about who was responsible in any articles I could find - they all report both accusations for who was responsible.

bdw5204 3y ago
Their original reporting on Tuesday was just the Hamas claims, typically attributed to either the "Gaza Health Ministry" or "Palestinian Health Ministry" rather than "Hamas".
hersko 3y ago
They all updated their articles. They initially published a Hamas talking point (i.e an outright lie) with no verification or questions, as if it were fact.
jasonlotito 3y ago
This is, unfortunately, a case of people misreading and misunderstanding journalistic standards that have been around for a long time. CFN Headline: "So and so did X, claims Y" is seen as CFN making the claim that so and so did X. I see this time and time again, and it's effectively people not even reading the complete headline. While I don't blame the journalists for these headlines (people aren't even reading the headlines and instead interpreting them the way they want), I do wonder if there is a better solution. And I know someone is going to come in and claim "Only put facts in the headline" or something like that, and these are generally fact-based headlines. Someone of interest made a claim, so going completely fact-based isn't going to help, because that happens already and people get confused.
- colejohnson66 3y ago
  It's standard journalistic practice to put "claims X" at the end of the headline. The "action" needs to be at the front of the headline to grab attention. It's not necessarily wrong to do so, but it could easily be avoided by titling as "Y claims So And So did X". The real issue is people not even reading the stories and only taking headlines as gospel. A bit of forgetfulness and telephone (the game) later and "So and so did X, Y claims" turns into "So and so did X".
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    Yeah, I was familiar with the practice to put "claims X" at the end, I just didn't make that clear. My question really revolves around: should that be changed? I wonder if this is a result of limited-character lengths on aggregators. It's easy to chop the end off of a headline and have it still make sense. Couple that with people reading only the first part of the headline and possibly ignoring the second part. I think your suggestion moving to attribution to the front would be helpful for headlines online. Maybe even have the title of the page have the attribution prepended to handle scrapers.
- 542458 3y ago
  Yes, thank you. And while you can definitely bias your reporting by only recording one side's accusations, that's not what happened here. As far as I can tell, most major news orgs' articles were updated as soon as Israel put out a statement. Some would say that we should just wait for both sides to put out info, or wait for independent investigations before reporting anything, but that can take quite some time. On Sept 6 there was a missile strike in Ukraine that was initially attributed to Russia - but it took almost two weeks for investigations to find that it was likely a Ukrainian misfire.
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    > Some would say that we should just wait for both sides to put out info I've seen people suggest that journalists should do the research themselves and report the facts. The assumption here is that the journalist should become the source, which flies in the face of journalistic integrity. Quite the opposite, the journalist should do some level of source verification, but I don't want the journalists themselves making the claims for news reports. This is why media literacy is so important, and why it's evident it's a skill people lack these days.
guntherhermann 3y ago
Because they all edit their articles 1984-style (We never said IDF were behind it / We never said there were 500 dead / We never said it was the hospital that was hit), instead of owning up and admitting mistakes they hide and pretend they never happened. To me it is a form of lying by omission
simonsarris 3y ago
They reported claims that didn't happen and definitely couldn't be verified (for a minimum of many hours) and and then progressively edited it down, using photos from other events. Eg: https://twitter.com/Jingjing_Li/status/1714895998252621877 https://twitter.com/Jingjing_Li/status/1714895998252621877 They juxtaposed pictures to give the impression that destroyed buildings were the hospital, which was not destroyed: https://twitter.com/JerylBier/status/1714626674715722119 https://twitter.com/JerylBier/status/1714626674715722119

by 542458 3y ago

Reuters, Sky, PBS, CBS, etc. don't make any specific accusations about who was responsible in any articles I could find - they all report both accusations for who was responsible.

bdw5204 3y ago

Their original reporting on Tuesday was just the Hamas claims, typically attributed to either the "Gaza Health Ministry" or "Palestinian Health Ministry" rather than "Hamas".

hersko 3y ago

They all updated their articles. They initially published a Hamas talking point (i.e an outright lie) with no verification or questions, as if it were fact.

jasonlotito 3y ago

This is, unfortunately, a case of people misreading and misunderstanding journalistic standards that have been around for a long time. CFN Headline: "So and so did X, claims Y" is seen as CFN making the claim that so and so did X. I see this time and time again, and it's effectively people not even reading the complete headline. While I don't blame the journalists for these headlines (people aren't even reading the headlines and instead interpreting them the way they want), I do wonder if there is a better solution. And I know someone is going to come in and claim "Only put facts in the headline" or something like that, and these are generally fact-based headlines. Someone of interest made a claim, so going completely fact-based isn't going to help, because that happens already and people get confused.

colejohnson66 3y ago
It's standard journalistic practice to put "claims X" at the end of the headline. The "action" needs to be at the front of the headline to grab attention. It's not necessarily wrong to do so, but it could easily be avoided by titling as "Y claims So And So did X". The real issue is people not even reading the stories and only taking headlines as gospel. A bit of forgetfulness and telephone (the game) later and "So and so did X, Y claims" turns into "So and so did X".
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  Yeah, I was familiar with the practice to put "claims X" at the end, I just didn't make that clear. My question really revolves around: should that be changed? I wonder if this is a result of limited-character lengths on aggregators. It's easy to chop the end off of a headline and have it still make sense. Couple that with people reading only the first part of the headline and possibly ignoring the second part. I think your suggestion moving to attribution to the front would be helpful for headlines online. Maybe even have the title of the page have the attribution prepended to handle scrapers.
542458 3y ago
Yes, thank you. And while you can definitely bias your reporting by only recording one side's accusations, that's not what happened here. As far as I can tell, most major news orgs' articles were updated as soon as Israel put out a statement. Some would say that we should just wait for both sides to put out info, or wait for independent investigations before reporting anything, but that can take quite some time. On Sept 6 there was a missile strike in Ukraine that was initially attributed to Russia - but it took almost two weeks for investigations to find that it was likely a Ukrainian misfire.
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  > Some would say that we should just wait for both sides to put out info I've seen people suggest that journalists should do the research themselves and report the facts. The assumption here is that the journalist should become the source, which flies in the face of journalistic integrity. Quite the opposite, the journalist should do some level of source verification, but I don't want the journalists themselves making the claims for news reports. This is why media literacy is so important, and why it's evident it's a skill people lack these days.

guntherhermann 3y ago

Because they all edit their articles 1984-style (We never said IDF were behind it / We never said there were 500 dead / We never said it was the hospital that was hit), instead of owning up and admitting mistakes they hide and pretend they never happened. To me it is a form of lying by omission

simonsarris 3y ago

They reported claims that didn't happen and definitely couldn't be verified (for a minimum of many hours) and and then progressively edited it down, using photos from other events. Eg: https://twitter.com/Jingjing_Li/status/1714895998252621877 https://twitter.com/Jingjing_Li/status/1714895998252621877 They juxtaposed pictures to give the impression that destroyed buildings were the hospital, which was not destroyed: https://twitter.com/JerylBier/status/1714626674715722119 https://twitter.com/JerylBier/status/1714626674715722119