I don’t think that the “Crossroads” team has ever focused on the same topic during radio programs-podcasts that are only two weeks apart.
But these are strange times and it seems that everything is moving way too fast. Ask the editors at The New York Times about that.
Thus, consider this week’s podcast an updated and expanded version our previous offering that ran with this headline: “Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix.” Now, to tune in this week’s 2.0 take on some of those subjects (and more), CLICK HERE. I kept the same “Matrix” graphics out front for a very simple reason — I still feel like I am living in a bizarre news environment in which it is difficult to tell what is real and what is digital illusion. How about you?
Thus, we are still dealing with the New York Times headline that helped launch a thousand arguments-protests-riots-pogroms in tense urban areas (and campuses of higher learning) around the world.
That news-shaping headline again: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.” That is a headline in which hard evidence later emerged that every single world in that equation could be scratched out (think red ink) with convincing tech evidence, according to the kinds of sources that journalists usually consider authoritative.
But the whole controversy would have been different — still inaccurate, but much more honest — if the first draft had simply said this: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, according to Hamas.” Yes, it would have helped if the Times team had not strategically located, under that headline, a photo of a blasted building in Gaza that was not the hospital (but we will set that aside for now).
The key is that the Times editors have finally deemed it necessary to address this issue, in this rather amazing item, “Editors’ Note: Gaza Hospital Coverage.” I doubt that this wall soothe any nerves in, oh, Istanbul, but it is worth reading. Here is most of that long (for this type of statement) editorial word from on high:
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. …
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.
I also think readers will want to listen to the short audio commentary, featuring Times executive editor Joe Kahn, found here (click to go to that page). A sound bite of that audio is at the start of the new “Crossroads” recording. Also, the Times team has, while searching for doubt, just released yet another take on this: “Revisiting the Gaza Hospital Explosion — We look at the evidence for who is responsible.”
If you are looking for a conservative take on this apology and the controversy surrounding it, go to this National Review essay: “New York Times Admits Error in Coverage of Gaza Hospital Blast.”
This post also includes some embedded standard-rules elite media reports from the BBC and MSNBC showing editorial judgments that resemble, in some ways, that of the reporting at the Times.
Those seeking an old-school liberal take on this circus can dig into this essay from Bari Weiss at The Free Press. She is certainly a scribe who knows a thing or two about editorial battles at the Gray Lady (click here for her famous resignation letter).
Here is that Free Press headline: “On Double Standards and Deafening Silence.” Weiss opined:
… [On] on October 17, The New York Times sent a false report to all of its readers that presented, as fact, Hamas talking points. It claimed that Israel had bombed a hospital, killing 500 people: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.”
The headline was untrue on every level. The bomb was not Israeli, but a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket aimed at Israel that misfired. The bomb didn’t hit the hospital, but the hospital parking lot. Hamas claimed that 500 people were killed, but a senior European intelligence source told AFP he thought the death toll was under 50; U.S. intelligence estimates that the number stands between 100 and 300. And it wasn’t Palestinians that said as much to the Times, but the Gaza Health Ministry — which is run by Hamas.
There was no uproar at the Times in response to this journalistic malpractice — at least not in public. Perhaps some expressed their concerns privately, for fear of reprisal. …
[The] Times finally published an editor’s note, saying “Times editors should have taken more care with the initial presentation, and been more explicit about what information could be verified.” I doubt that message reached the rioters in Tunisia who burned the Al Hammah synagogue to the ground.
What next?
In the podcast, I noted (based on my own experience in newsrooms) that journalists have increasingly found themselves pinned down by a two-edged sword of technology.
Yes, they can do news — headlines that circle the world — in a matter of minutes. There is no deadline. The only deadline is RIGHT NOW, ahead of everyone else. Does this make errors more likely? Of course. Does this mean there is less time for sane discussions? How about seeking out voices that would challenge or debate the kinds of “facts” proclaimed in that infamous headline? Fuhgeddaboudit.
But here is the other edge. Those editors have to know that — when dealing with this kind of event in real time, at a real place, witnessed by real people — that high-tech evidence will surface in a matter of hours or days. An Israel bomb? From what airplane on radar, a plane that flew in from what airbase? Was it a rocket? OK, what do the images — from satellites or smartphones show about the flight path of that rocket?
That information is on its way, perhaps after governments make security decisions about how to label it. Oh, and don’t forget that Captain X (Elon Musk) has some tech up in space, as well.
So what “facts” do we still need to have verified to some degree or another? Here are some of my own questions:
* Are there journalists who question the validity of images from GoPro cameras taken from soldiers and terrorists killed in combat? What is the claim here, that Israel Defense Force pros did deep-fake images of their own citizens being gunned down? Just asking.
* What is the quality of Israeli claims that Hamas places its political and military centers (stashes of ammo, even) next to hospitals, mosques, child-care centers, churches, etc.? This element of “human shield” debates needs to be addressed with some high-tech proof.
* What is the visual evidence that Hamas is, in fact, locking Palestinians, Americans and other internationals inside Gaza — rather than letting them flee to relative safety? Would roadblocks show up in satellite images?
* Of course, Hamas censors the press. Of course, Israeli leaders do the same to some degree. Could editors level with us on these facts or would that cut too many lines of communication?
* And also this: Can someone explain to me the difference between a child whose head has been separated from its body and a child that has been beheaded?
I won’t say “enjoy the podcast,” as I always do at the end of these posts. This isn’t the time for that.
But please listen, and then share the podcast with others. Also, remember that you can subscribe to “Crossroads,” at Apple podcasts.