While, in spirit, I agree with Silver here (especially in regards to the Times, and journalists in general, treatment of their own errors), this event and the c

While, in spirit, I agree with Silver here (especially in regards to the Times, and journalists in general, treatment of their own errors), this event and the criticism around it, are such a stark example of how headlines, not stories, have become over-weighted. The Times headline is accurate, but, because its a headline, misleading as it doesn't convey – as the text of the story itself did – the fact that nothing was verified yet, and things were in dispute. But the story laid out that nuance. If you'd read the story, and not scrolled past it, you'd have walked away with a better sense of the context and doubt around the story. I had to correct several friends when they brought it up as a point of outrage. Had the Times ran a headline without blaming a party, "Hospital blast in Gaza, hundreds dead", any person, reading it, and having a passing understanding of the context, probably would have thought, "Israel did that". It's a no win situation. But, Nate's right that the problem isn't the initial headline, but the follow-up.