By Berl Falbaum
Presumably, New York Times editors have a proficiency with words. But they seem to have trouble with two: “We’re sorry.”
Here is language The Times used to explain the misrepresentation of one of its stories:
“…Times editors should have taken more care with the initial presentation, and been more explicit about what information could be verified.”
Sounds like the paper is addressing a story about a burglary, fire or multi-car accident on a freeway.
No, The Times was referring to a piece -- the bombing of the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza that killed hundreds -- that set the entire Arab world on fire, including protests in many parts of the world.
The Times, trying to explain its irresponsibility, published an “Editors’ Note: Gaza Hospital Coverage,” October 23, six days after the paper’s headline implied strongly that Israel was responsible for the bombing. Said The Times in “The Note”:
“…[T]he 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 Note” received major news coverage and while other media outlets were guilty of the same journalistic sin, none, as far as I know, did anything to rectify the gross distortion.
The NiemanLab, which tracks journalistic performance, called the statement a “limited mea culpa,” but it was hardly that. There was no “We’re sorry. We made a serious mistake. We were irresponsible. It was totally unprofessional. The people responsible will be held accountable. It was a terrible misrepresentation.”
The 308-word statement was a mealy-mouthed, self-serving defense of unpardonable journalistic behavior in a story that required the most accurate and responsible reporting.
Nor was there an attempt to make amends. Perhaps The Times could have considered placing “The Note” as an ad in Arab newspapers and on TV.
If “The Note” was not enough, Joseph F. Kahn, The Times’ executive editor, did an interview on the paper’s audio app in which he also skirted any responsibility.
He said reporters have difficulty verifying information in Gaza’s war zone (that’s why they should have been even more careful), and, no, the paper does not bear any responsibility for the violent protests that followed because others in the media made the same mistake. He managed to agree that the headline over the story was not as good or accurate as it might have been.
He sounded like the politicians that his reporters interview and complain about their lack of candor and transparency.
For those who missed the coverage, here is a condensed version of what contributed to blaming Israel for the bombing.
At 2:09 p.m., The Times’ banner headline, in large type, across six columns, shouted: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.”
Roughly, for the next two hours, the headline changed somewhat but the implication remained basically the same. It wasn’t until 4:01 p.m. -- about two hours later --that the paper removed “Israeli Strike” and published the following more neutral headline:
“At Least 500 Dead in Strike on Gaza Hospital, Palestinians Say,” adding in a subhead that “Israelis Say Misfired Palestinian Rocket Was Cause of Explosion.”
Even before news reached the world in seconds, before the internet, such an error would have caused significant harm. But given that news now reaches “everyone” instantly, the damage was incalculable and probably cannot be undone because millions will continue to believe that Israel was to blame. After all, the story came from the paper of record.
The incident brings to mind The Times’ scant coverage of the Holocaust in World War which received short shrift from the country’s most prominent paper.
The paper’s lackluster reporting of the Holocaust was examined by Laura Leff, associate professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University in Boston, in her book, “Buried by The Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper.” For instance, she wrote:
“The story of the Holocaust made the Times front page only 26 times out of 24,000 front-page stories, and most of those stories referred to the victims as ‘refugees’ or ‘persecuted minorities.’ In only six of those stories were Jews identified on page one as the primary victims.”
Another example from her book: An article about the fall of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 was placed at the bottom of page six. “The way The Times treated the destruction of the ghetto was emblematic of the way it treated the annihilation of the Jews.”
In 1996, The Times issued the following statement: “The Times has long been criticized for grossly underplaying the Holocaust while it was taking place. Clippings from the papers show that the criticism is valid.”
Even after 50 years, no mea culpas; just a yes, we “underplayed” the Holocaust.
The Israel-Hamas war threatens to expand into a regional conflict, and perhaps even wider. If there ever was a time for the most exact, definitive and responsible reporting, this was it.
The Times (and other media outlets) may very well have contributed to that unthinkable possibility.
That danger requires more than a “Note.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
