5 ms·

You will notice that the "journalists" who wrote your story don't quote a single instance of these allegedly false claims. This is probably because there were n

You will notice that the "journalists" who wrote your story don't quote a single instance of these allegedly false claims. This is probably because there were none. Every single story I saw made it clear that these were allegations from Hamas, included whatever information was available from the Israeli government, and repeatedly stated that nothing was certain. There truly could not have been more accurate early coverage. The information simply did not exist. This is the earliest version of that story I could find from Reuters. https://web.archive.org/web/20231017192141/https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/diplomats-renew-calls-gaza-aid-iran-warns-israel-2023-10-16/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231017192141/https://www.reute... But you could definitely argue that that article repeats the claims from Gaza too uncritically, which is why it was updated within seven minutes of publication to make it clearer the reports were unsubstantiated. https://web.archive.org/web/20231017195440/https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/diplomats-renew-calls-gaza-aid-iran-warns-israel-2023-10-16/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231017195440/https://www.reute... But that still gives a one-sided story. They say that the Israeli government has yet to comment. Which is why the story was updated again to include information from the Israeli military, arriving at this version within an hour: https://web.archive.org/web/20231017202059/https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/diplomats-renew-calls-gaza-aid-iran-warns-israel-2023-10-16/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231017202059/https://www.reute... The fog of war isn't just in video games. As usual, the New York Times has a good article on this subject. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/business/media/hospital-blast-gaza-reports.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/business/media/hospital-b... You might argue (and I would argue) that it is irresponsible to publish any story at all when things are so uncertain. The original story was accurate, but confusing rather than enlightening. That's why I don't read breaking news. I don't entirely disagree with your criticisms. We can, and should, demand better from our papers. But the solution isn't to write off the best papers we have. People who refuse to read the Times invariably replace it with something far worse. P.S. There were "around 500" deaths. The current estimates I've seen are 200-300, which is "around 500" when picking through rubble in a war zone.

hersko 3y ago
A few points. - Reuters leads by saying the reports come from "health officials", "Gaza health authorities", and "Palestinian health authorities", as if these are reliable third party agencies. These are all Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization that last week went on a killing spree murdering and brutalizing over a thousand civilians including the elderly and children. Reporting what they say without any actual verification is heinous and absolutely destroys their credibility. > As usual, the New York Times has a good article on this subject The New York times was one of the most egregious actors regarding what happened. They had a front page story about the hospital showing a completely different bombed building from the other side of Gaza as if that was the hospital that was destroyed [1]. I genuinely don't understand how people are not being fired over this. > There were "around 500" deaths. 200-300 is "around 500" when picking through rubble in a war zone. That's just it. There was no rubble. There was no 200-300 hundred deaths. Look at the photo. It was a parking lot that was set on fire with rocket fuel. The building was practically undamaged. People still act like the death toll numbers coming from Gaza are accurate when they are clearly not. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8uNSAbXoAABhR0?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8uNSAbXoAABhR0?format=jpg&name=...
- dfaomiopnio 3y ago
  >Reuters leads by saying the reports come from "health officials", "Gaza health authorities", and "Palestinian health authorities", as if these are reliable third party agencies. Hamas is the government of the Gaza strip. Anyone following the story should know that. Unfortunately, they're the most reliable source we have for much of this information. I will admit that it could be made clearer. There are readers who are starting from a place of ignorance. A story should be written such that a 12 year old child could understand it. Also, there are two Palestinian governments and it's not always clear which is being referred to. But the problem here is, I think, simply that writing is hard. >They had a front page story about the hospital showing a completely different bombed building from the other side of Gaza as if that was the hospital that was destroyed [1]. The way you are framing this is inaccurate. The same picture had been on the front page for hours before the story of the explosion was published. It was not a part of that story. Here's a capture from hours before the story broke: https://web.archive.org/web/20231017154440/https://www.nytimes.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231017154440/https://www.nytim... The caption for the picture also states that it is of a different city entirely. I won't dispute that the design could be confusing. Also, I don't think such a picture belongs in a newspaper at all. It's useless and voyeuristic, serving more to shock than to inform. But this is clearly not a problem of dishonesty. Besides, why would they lie? The actual pictures of the aftermath don't look any prettier. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/world/middleeast/gaza-hospital-israel-hamas-explained.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/world/middleeast/gaza-hos...

hersko 3y ago

A few points. - Reuters leads by saying the reports come from "health officials", "Gaza health authorities", and "Palestinian health authorities", as if these are reliable third party agencies. These are all Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization that last week went on a killing spree murdering and brutalizing over a thousand civilians including the elderly and children. Reporting what they say without any actual verification is heinous and absolutely destroys their credibility. > As usual, the New York Times has a good article on this subject The New York times was one of the most egregious actors regarding what happened. They had a front page story about the hospital showing a completely different bombed building from the other side of Gaza as if that was the hospital that was destroyed [1]. I genuinely don't understand how people are not being fired over this. > There were "around 500" deaths. 200-300 is "around 500" when picking through rubble in a war zone. That's just it. There was no rubble. There was no 200-300 hundred deaths. Look at the photo. It was a parking lot that was set on fire with rocket fuel. The building was practically undamaged. People still act like the death toll numbers coming from Gaza are accurate when they are clearly not. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8uNSAbXoAABhR0?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8uNSAbXoAABhR0?format=jpg&name=...

dfaomiopnio 3y ago
>Reuters leads by saying the reports come from "health officials", "Gaza health authorities", and "Palestinian health authorities", as if these are reliable third party agencies. Hamas is the government of the Gaza strip. Anyone following the story should know that. Unfortunately, they're the most reliable source we have for much of this information. I will admit that it could be made clearer. There are readers who are starting from a place of ignorance. A story should be written such that a 12 year old child could understand it. Also, there are two Palestinian governments and it's not always clear which is being referred to. But the problem here is, I think, simply that writing is hard. >They had a front page story about the hospital showing a completely different bombed building from the other side of Gaza as if that was the hospital that was destroyed [1]. The way you are framing this is inaccurate. The same picture had been on the front page for hours before the story of the explosion was published. It was not a part of that story. Here's a capture from hours before the story broke: https://web.archive.org/web/20231017154440/https://www.nytimes.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231017154440/https://www.nytim... The caption for the picture also states that it is of a different city entirely. I won't dispute that the design could be confusing. Also, I don't think such a picture belongs in a newspaper at all. It's useless and voyeuristic, serving more to shock than to inform. But this is clearly not a problem of dishonesty. Besides, why would they lie? The actual pictures of the aftermath don't look any prettier. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/world/middleeast/gaza-hospital-israel-hamas-explained.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/world/middleeast/gaza-hos...