This Gaza matrix is, for journalists, a digital-tech sword with two razor edges — GetReligion
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.
