This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/worldnews by /u/SnuggleMuffin42 on 2023-10-23 13:27:48.
Original Title: New York Times editor’s note: The Times ‘prominent’ coverage of the Gaza Hospital incident relied too heavily on Hamas’ account, and left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was
autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] 2 years ago
This is the best summary I could come up with:
On Oct. 17, The New York Times published news of an explosion at a hospital in Gaza City, leading its coverage with claims by Hamas government officials that an Israeli airstrike was the cause and that hundreds of people were dead or injured.
American and other international officials have said their evidence indicates that the rocket came from Palestinian fighter positions.
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.
Within two hours, the headline and other text at the top of the website reflected the scope of the explosion and the dispute over responsibility.
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.
Newsroom leaders continue to examine procedures around the biggest breaking news events — including for the use of the largest headlines in the digital report — to determine what additional safeguards may be warranted.
The original article contains 312 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 36%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!