When journalism historians write about the Hamas terror raid on Israel, and the Gaza war that followed, they will need to parse the early headlines about the explosion in the parking lot next to the Ahli Arab Hospital.
I am assuming that something called “journalism” will survive the rise of AI and the fall of an advertising-based, broad audience model of the press. I am an old guy with old dreams. Thus, we dug into this subject during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).
What did the mainstream press report? Click here for a “conservative” collection of tweets, headlines and URLs to basic reports from the likes of BBC, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, etc. At this point in time, it’s “conservative” to care about old-liberal standards of journalism ethics.
What matters the most, of course is the New York Times headline that guided the digital rockets, so to speak, fired by elite journalists around the world.
Let’s work through that headline: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.”
My first question, of many (and I tweeted this one out): “In this tech age, could some satellite imagery tell us the origin of the rocket?”
Whoever wrote that Times headline, or the editor supervising that process, had to know that someone — Elon Musk even — was going to share images and data from space or nearby radar, drones, smartphones, etc., that showed where the rocket was launched and in which direction it was headed.
That information would, of course, come from the United States (one way or the other) or Israel. Thus, the basic question an editor had to ask: Do we produce a banner headline based on information from Hamas, alone? The editor or editors answered, “YES.” The rest is history.
Next question: What part of that headline is accurate, in terms of the evidence now? Israeli attack? No. Was the hospital hit? No. It was a parking lot full of refugees. Did “hundreds” — 500 in one reference — die? It appears the number was much lower than that. Did anyone “strike” or target the hospital? No. It appears that an Islamist rocket malfunctioned, on its way to Israel, and fell in Gaza.
We are left with, “Palestinians say.” Sorry about that.
The Gray Lady backed up, later, producing a story that stressed that — Wait. For. It. — information really should be verified about what happened in this tragedy: “Early U.S. and Israeli Intelligence Says Palestinian Group Caused Hospital Blast.”
Here is a key chunk of that report:
The U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive information, said they were basing their early analysis on multiple strands of intelligence indicating that the blast at Ahli Arab hospital was caused by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group allied with Hamas. The group said Israel’s accusations that one of its rockets malfunctioned and hit the hospital were “false and baseless.” Hamas has not provided any documentation of Israeli involvement.
The officials cautioned that the analysis was preliminary and that they were continuing to collect and analyze evidence. Neither side’s claims about who was responsible have been independently verified.
The American intelligence, first mentioned by President Biden, includes satellite and other infrared data showing a launch of a rocket or missile from Palestinian fighter positions within Gaza. American intelligence agencies have also analyzed open-source video — recordings collected by journalists and others — of the launch showing that it did not come from the direction of Israeli military positions, the officials said. Israeli officials have also provided the United States with intercepts of Hamas officials saying the strike came from forces aligned with Palestinian militant groups.
The Times even produced an after-the-fact report on how hard it is to know what is going on in Gaza:
After Hospital Blast, Headlines Shift With Changing Claims
The fast-moving events highlighted the difficulty of covering the war between Israel and Hamas.
Indeed, it is hard to produce lightning-quick reports in a war zone, especially when the leaders of a terrorist group (quoting U.S. authorities, of course) are in control of the field of play. I’ll ask: At this point in time, do Times subscribers trust Hamas more than Israeli officials?
As Rod “Live Not By Lies” Dreher wrote on Substack: “In Fog Of War, Facts Don't Matter.”
What really happened to that hospital — meaning, the origin of the missile — is now beside the point. People have “their” truth. The war cry has gone out. As I write this at nearly six in the morning Central European time, US embassies and consulates throughout the Arab world and in Turkey are under siege. By the time American readers see it, it might be obsolete — that’s how fast this story is moving.
Did editors even pause to think through who had a rational or even irrational MOTIVE to aim an attack at a hospital? Here is a fine, logical, series of tweets on that journalism question — care of Matt Franck of Princeton University. Read it all.
All of this is related, of course, to this GetReligion post earlier this week: “Clouds of images, blood and chaos, as old-school news chases the digital Hamas blitz.” It focuses on a commentary from Harretz, on the Israeli left, about the role of social-media in all of this confusion.
But what matters more, right now, conventional news or social-media and/or advocacy media aimed at specific sets of partisans?
Alas, I think that we know the answer to that. Thus, I will end with a blitz of questions.
* Who would you trust to provide info on a future horror story from Gaza? Consider Hamas, the Israeli government, CNN, the New York Times, Fox News, The Daily Wire, The Free Press, Elon Musk (think Starlink), the White House, Tucker Carlson, former President Donald Trump, Facebook, Joe Rogan.
* How about these questions: Had Hamas stashed ammunition at the hospital or nearby? Has Hamas blocked exit routes from Gaza, forcing thousands of Palestinians to shelter in place — becoming human shields? Did Israel lie about babies being beheaded (as opposed to mere murders) in the Hamas blitz? Have any U.S. funds ended up in Hamas pockets, via Iran or otherwise? I could go on. New questions will arise today, I am sure.
* Consider all of these questions from the point of view of, to name a few: Iran, the White House, Saudi Arabia, demonstrators on U.S. campuses, Jordan, Apple, China, Google, Russia, French ghettos, Disney, House Republicans, House Democrats, the president of Harvard, Christians in the Middle East, anti-Hamas Palestinians. What sources of information to these people and groups share and trust?
Get the picture? Is there any source of factual information that will be trusted in — best-case scenario — ordinary American households?
Enjoy the podcast (if “enjoy” is the right word) and, please, share it with others. Or subscribe to “Crossroads,” using Apple podcasts.