In Gaza hospital reports, the crutch of attribution failed

early version of the new york times’ online coverage of the gaza hospital explosion Oct. 17, which THE TIMES later RECANTED. (screenshot from niemanlab.org)

Nothing sets up the news media for errors and remorse better than the bad combination of major breaking news and the immediate lack of information about that news. Audiences demand information pronto, and the media have zippo.

This was the case when an explosion occurred Oct. 17 at a Gaza City hospital. The New York Times soon posted this big, online headline: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.” The headline went through several versions, including one that added “At Least 500 Dead.” The “Palestinians” in “Palestinians Say” was the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Health Ministry. Other media around the globe produced similar headlines, including some with no attribution.

As the world learned from emerging evidence over the next 48 hours, the finger point to Israel was wrong. Also known as a lie. The leading suspected cause is now an errant Palestinian rocket. And the 500 death count was too high.

But neither the gradual revelation of the truth, nor Israel’s dispute of the blame 90 minutes after the explosion, could offset the anti-Israel sentiments and protests sparked by the steadfast first impression from the early media reports, which gave credibility to a claim and a source that deserved none.

In a case like this, journalists shouldn’t even bother with the “Well, they said it” defense.

But that defense – thinking you’re off the hook because you attributed information to a source – is part of why The Times and other organizations did what they did. As was the immediate information vacuum, which is especially common in a war. Everyone is desperately looking for news that seems quickly reportable.

Editors and producers can find other self-justifications for publishing disinformation. For instance, that powerful people and entities deserve time and space just because they are powerful. And that propaganda campaigns – in wars and politics, especially – are newsworthy in themselves.

In some cases, I buy the argument that the public needs to know if newsmakers are spreading false information. The question to always ask, though, is what potential harm may come from giving attention to the falsehoods. Does it endanger anyone? Does it spawn hatred? That both would happen in the case of the false accusation against Israel was completely predictable.

One New York Times editor, who was rebuffed, tried to warn against the intended headline, according to an article Tuesday in Vanity Fair, which obtained internal messages. The editor wrote: “We can’t just hang the attribution of something so big on one source without having tried to verify it. And then slap it across the top of the [homepage]. Putting the attribution at the end doesn’t give us cover, if we’ve been burned and we’re wrong.”

The Times, unlike several other guilty news outlets, eventually admitted its mistake, saying it “should have taken more care with the initial presentation.” What exactly does that mean? To start, it means making it clear what claims are unverified and whether any evidence exists. It also means stating any and all facts to the contrary.

Of course, do those defenses work if people read only the headline? That would be a no. And if someone were predisposed to believe a lie, would contradictory facts stop them? That would be another no.

So here’s an idea: When the stakes are really high, go against nature and custom and don’t publish the claim. Grant time for the truth to show itself. Be willing to run behind the pack on the apparent blockbuster, which won’t be a blockbuster anyway if it’s wrong. When standing in an information void, news organizations need the courage to do this more often.

Atrocities in Israel cause news media to show more of horrifying truth

screenshot from video posted by the new york times. it credited south first responders via the social media platform telegram.

With social media showing so much ghastly video from the Hamas terrorism in Israel in the past week, the news media certainly don’t serve as the gatekeeper for what the public can see. But news organizations still reach a lot of people who won’t go hunting for content on social media, so their decisions of how graphically to depict awful events still matter.

What I’ve seen lately are news media that believe the realities in Israel and in the Gaza Strip demand pushing, but still not ripping, the envelope of traditional bounds.

I wrote last year, during the early days of Russia’s violent invasion of Ukraine, that publication of images of the victims of any kind of violence disrespects the dead, but also that more and more journalists and advocates believe it’ll take some visual shock to get the public and decision makers motivated to end the suffering.

I’m posting three examples from the Hamas-Israel war that tested typical editorial limits. Clicking means you agree to view disturbing images. (The news organizations posted warning labels, as they should have.)

• The Washington Post published a video taken from social media of Hamas militants leading four civilian hostages away on foot with their hands tied, then a video from a few moments later that showed all four lying dead on the ground.

• The New York Times published a video taken from social media of a gunman ambushing and firing into a car that was pulling up to a kibbutz gate. The video shows multiple bullets striking the driver, who was partially visible through the car windows. Everyone in the car died.

• CNN posted a video from the Palestinian Health Ministry that included bloody dead bodies on the ground following Israeli shelling near Gaza City.

Is the press doing this as propaganda for one of the sides? Nice conspiracy theory but no.

Such decisions are easier to make when the events occur in other nations. U.S. news media restrain themselves more when it’s American mass violence. But I also call your attention to two recent, impressive efforts to portray the brutality of violence – gun violence in these cases – without showing the gore that would repulse the audience. These come from two of the national outlets mentioned above. They clearly believe the public needs a more realistic picture of the problem.

In March, The Washington Post used 3D animations to show the devastating damage that an AR-15 does to the human body.

In April, The New York Times produced a gut-wrenching magazine story on the crime-scene investigators at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The headline: “They saw the horrific aftermath of a mass shooting. Should we?”

I answer no. In the case of Hamas, written descriptions were all I needed to grasp the depravity. But a growing number of news media professionals would say it’s time to answer yes.