The New York Times has issued a long-overdue apology for their irresponsible and patently false reporting over the Gaza hospital bombing. The initial report was that the explosion was due to an Israeli airstrike that left hundreds of dead bodies all over the floor and blood covering the walls, except it was none of that: the terrorists bombed the hospital. It resulted from a misfire from a rocket barrage launched by Islamic Jihad.
There’s evidence debunking the Israeli strike claim. There’s video evidence of the rocket misfire. Also, the explosion occurred in the parking lot. If the IDF had launched this strike, the hospital would be a crater. Again, they did not do this. Still, The Times and other outlets blamed Israel, setting off a wave of Muslim anger that put lives at risk. American embassies in Beirut and Baghdad were swarmed by angry protesters, thanks to this fake news echo chamber. The damage is done, and it’s given cause for anti-Israel and other terrorist-sympathizing groups to marginalize the viciousness of Hamas’ October 7 attacks, which left over 1,200 people dead, including babies that were beheaded and burned.
The New York Times could have avoided this journalistic fiasco if they didn’t trust the terrorists. They did—and had to eat it hard:
On Oct. 17, The New York Times published news of an explosion at a hospital in Gaza City, leading its coverage with claims by Hamas government officials that an Israeli airstrike was the cause and that hundreds of people were dead or injured. The report included a large headline at the top of The Times’s website.
Israel subsequently denied being at fault and blamed an errant rocket launch by the Palestinian faction group Islamic Jihad, which has in turn denied responsibility. American and other international officials have said their evidence indicates that the rocket came from Palestinian fighter positions.
The Times’s initial accounts attributed the claim of Israeli responsibility to Palestinian officials, and noted that the Israeli military said it was investigating the blast. However, the early versions of the coverage — and the prominence it received in a headline, news alert and social media channels — relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified. The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was.
The Times continued to update its coverage as more information became available, reporting the disputed claims of responsibility and noting that the death toll might be lower than initially reported. Within two hours, the headline and other text at the top of the website reflected the scope of the explosion and the dispute over responsibility.
Given the sensitive nature of the news during a widening conflict, and the prominent promotion it received, Times editors should have taken more care with the initial presentation, and been more explicit about what information could be verified. Newsroom leaders continue to examine procedures around the biggest breaking news events — including for the use of the largest headlines in the digital report — to determine what additional safeguards may be warranted.
You can’t say you’re sorry after you burned the house down, Hamas Times. The horse has long left the barn. The toothpaste is out of the tube. You failed, just as on Hunter Biden’s laptop and the Russian collusion hoax. We weren’t expecting much due to your history of failure, but holy #$%^. You thought terrorist sources were credible. That’s what happens when antisemites overtake your newsroom.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member