3 ms·

>Reuters leads by saying the reports come from "health officials", "Gaza health authorities", and "Palestinian health authorities", as if these are reliable thi

>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
> 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: I did not know this, wow. I appreciate you pointing this out to me since i took the front page image at face value. Having said that, that perhaps slightly lessens the blame, as they should understand how it looks and should have updated the image accordingly. I guess we agree that the story should have been covered better, as a trusted source of news should be take extra precautions before posting news stories like this. My main take away from this entire situation is that i was better (and more accurately) informed by scrolling through twitter than a NY times or Reuters reader would have been. That's not a good thing and shows that their is something deeply wrong with our MSM.
- dfaomiopnio 3y ago
  I disagree more than I agree. I certainly wouldn't claim the New York Times or Reuters or the AP or NPR are perfect. But I would say they are flawed people doing important and difficult and unrewarding work and doing it better than nearly anyone else in the world. I doubt you'd be quite so positive.

hersko 3y ago

> 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: I did not know this, wow. I appreciate you pointing this out to me since i took the front page image at face value. Having said that, that perhaps slightly lessens the blame, as they should understand how it looks and should have updated the image accordingly. I guess we agree that the story should have been covered better, as a trusted source of news should be take extra precautions before posting news stories like this. My main take away from this entire situation is that i was better (and more accurately) informed by scrolling through twitter than a NY times or Reuters reader would have been. That's not a good thing and shows that their is something deeply wrong with our MSM.

dfaomiopnio 3y ago
I disagree more than I agree. I certainly wouldn't claim the New York Times or Reuters or the AP or NPR are perfect. But I would say they are flawed people doing important and difficult and unrewarding work and doing it better than nearly anyone else in the world. I doubt you'd be quite so positive.