Some unverified reports of atrocities by Israel and Hamas have spread widely. Why?
As if the atrocities in the Middle East over the past month weren’t terrible enough, the mainstream press has managed to make matters worse. Too often, false or unconfirmed reporting circulated widely, including on some of the biggest, most prestigious platforms in the world.
In two notable cases, the problem began with dubious or insufficient sourcing, was accepted by the media as the truth – or, hey, close enough! – and then exaggerated on social media.
One was the early claim (still being disputed) that Hamas had beheaded dozens of babies as part of its brutal attack on Israel. Another (also being disputed) was that Israel was responsible for bombing a hospital in Gaza City, causing 500 or more deaths.
The New York Times and the BBC were among those reporting the latter.
“It’s hard to see what else this could be, really, other than an Israeli air strike or several air strikes,” a BBC onair correspondent declared shortly after the 17 October hospital bombing.
The New York Times put this early headline on its website: Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinian Officials Say. US intelligence experts now say that they have determined “with high confidence” that Israel was not responsible but they are still unable to determine for sure who launched the rocket.
CNN was among those reporting that Hamas had beheaded babies. In this case, the claims were circulating among top government officials. A spokesperson for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, told the cable network on 11 October that decapitated bodies of babies had been found, and Biden seemed to confirm it at a roundtable event with Israeli leaders: “I never really thought that I would see and have confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children.” Later, he spoke more generally about the terrible murders of families, including children, seeming to back off somewhat.
Soon, social media was pushing the unverified claim that 40 such bodies had been found.
In both cases, the provocative reports traveled around the world, sparking protests and deepening hatred.
Also in both cases, the angry debunking and criticism that followed these reports may have missed a larger picture. While those dozens of beheadings may not have happened, Hamas undeniably was guilty of horrible crimes against children and babies as well as adults; and, in the other case, it is undeniable that the Israeli bombing campaign has hit many civilian targets and caused many Palestinian deaths.All of this contributed to a tendency to believe outrageous claims, whether verified or not, depending on one’s prior beliefs. In this fraught atmosphere, the role of fact-based journalists is even more vital.
Even with only a few weeks of hindsight, it’s worth taking a look back, as the New York Times did in a rare editors’ note about a week after their early headlines proved unsubstantiated, and likely wrong. Stating the obvious, the note acknowledged that Times editors “should have taken more care with the initial presentation, and been more explicit about what information could be verified”.
The core problem, of course, is that reporters are taking someone else’s word for what has happened, not making first-hand observations.
Many journalists have been killed in this conflict, and others, understandably, have left the region and are reporting from a distance.
“It’s all tied to the lack of certified, trustworthy information,” Dina Sadek of the Atlantic Council told PolitiFact, which took a deep look at the beheading story and how it spread. The fact-checking organization tracked the early reports back to a reporter for i24 News, an Israeli news channel, who said she was relaying the eyewitness reports of soldiers.
“The age-old question in newsrooms is ‘how do we know what we think we know?’” said Bill Grueskin, a professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a former high-ranking newspaper editor, including at the Wall Street Journal.
Most important, he said, is that there be someone involved in a breaking story – it could be a senior editor or even a trusted reporter – who is willing to tap the brakes. And then others must take heed.
“There is a certain adrenaline that starts flowing with a big story and that energy can cloud judgment,” Grueskin told me.
I see four elements that can help journalists get it right.
Caution. This includes the willingness, which runs against journalistic DNA, to be slower than other news organization in reporting a big story. Better to be right than to be first is the slogan that makes sense here. Or as former Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger put it: there are worse things in this world than to get beaten on a story.
Skepticism. Where is this information coming from? Is this a cred
ible source or is it one with a political axe to grind? What’s the source’s history of accuracy and dependability? Merely attributing the information is not enough.
Corroboration. Are there multiple credible sources reporting or claiming the same development based on evidence or first-hand knowledge? Or, as may have been the case with the early claims of beheaded babies, is it really one source being echoed by many?
Verification. Forensics, photographs from the scene, geolocation techniques – all of these can help determine the truth. But in this age of deep fakes, photos and videos can be altered and must be approached carefully and with great expertise. This takes time – days or even weeks. That doesn’t help on a tight deadline.
So how can this work in real life? How, for example, could the Gaza hospital bombing have been reported in the early hours?
It would have gone against journalistic DNA but the best bet would have been merely to report that a hospital had been bombed, that there appeared to be significant casualties and that the source of the bombing was being investigated.
The idea communicated, transparently and honestly, to news consumers should be this: “Here’s what we know. This is a developing story, and we’ll tell you as we learn more.”
Unsatisfactory to journalistic instincts? Certainly. But much, much better than getting it wrong.
Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture