> Remember that time when the AP and Reuters published headlines that Israel had bombed a Palestinian hospital with 500 dead? When was that? Two days ago?

If I recall those headlines correctly, they all included with "said Palestinian officials" or similar, which makes the reporting factual no matter who actually bombed the hospital. They were reporting on official statements, not making claims about what happened.

Similar things happen all the time. "State department officials say X" and similar isn't AP or Reuters making claims about X being true or not, they're just reporting statements.

"...said Palestinian officials" is such a slimy way to absolve them of responsibility.

People around the world trust them, like OP over here. They have a responsibility to do even basic verification work before posting something that they know will ignite riots around the world. The IDF seems very open about the strikes they make, were they reached out to for comment? Should the reporter have thought to themselves, "hey, does it make sense that Israel would bomb a hospital packed with civilians right as the US president is about to visit? Would Israel so blatantly destroy the relatively high global goodwill and backing they currently have? What do they have to gain?" It makes no sense if you think about it for half a second, yet these "reputable news sources" sent push notifications to millions of people to spew a complete lie form Hamas when THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL EVENT SINCE IT NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

>The IDF seems very open about the strikes they make, were they reached out to for comment?

Yes. The very first articles say the IDF hadn't yet commented. Later articles included their comments. "Later," in this case, means "one hour later".

>hey, does it make sense that Israel would bomb a hospital packed with civilians right as the US president is about to visit? Would Israel so blatantly destroy the relatively high global goodwill and backing they currently have? What do they have to gain?

Israeli bombardment has hit hospitals before.

Israeli damaged hospitals in 2021, perhaps unintentionally.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/17/israeli-strike...

This is a stub of an article and the origin of the claims isn't clear to me, but it seems Israeli artillery hit the very same hospital we're discussing on the 14th.

https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/news/news-and-stateme...

In the 2014 war Israel admitted to deliberately attacking a hospital, claiming that it contained a weapons cache.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/21/world/meast/gaza-hospital-att...

It is not, on its face, implausible that Israel would attack a hospital. It is also quite plausible that they would hit a hospital by mistake. They have done both of these things before.

>THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL EVENT SINCE IT NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

The event happened. There was an explosion at a hospital that killed hundreds of people. This is not in dispute.

> There was an explosion at a hospital that killed hundreds of people. This is not in dispute.

There is no evidence that hundreds of people were killed. The EU believes the death toll to be between 10-50.

The US puts the death toll at 100-300, for whatever unclassified documents from US intelligence are worth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/world/middleeast/gaza-hos...

I can't find the EU number, but I'll take your word for it.

It's entirely possible the death toll is lower. I don't claim that we know anything for certain.

You originally claimed "The event happened. There was an explosion at a hospital that killed hundreds of people. This is not in dispute."

> The event happened. There was an explosion at a hospital that killed hundreds of people. This is not in dispute.

Looking at the crater left behind by the missile and the damage radius I find it very hard to believe that hundreds of people died.

> People around the world trust them, like OP over here. They have a responsibility to do even basic verification work before posting something that they know will ignite riots around the world.

Yes, I'm sure they verified exactly what Palestinian officials said. What they didn't verify (and what the articles were not about) is if the "facts" the Palestinian officials gave them were correct or not. The articles are not investigative articles that strive to report only the truth and facts, but more informal articles that gives you what various people had said.

No they did not. I was following this very closely as it happened. Obviously I don’t remember the exact phrasing, but at least Reuters had put in their headline wording similar to “Israel bombs Gaza Hospital, killing 500”.

In the text it was less clear, but the damage was done. I lost all respect for Reuters because of this.

I know, because I was arguing on Reddit(person has since deleted their comments, because they were spreading FAKE NEWS) while it was happening.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/B7HLYVmrqL

You will notice that the "journalists" who wrote your story don't quote a single instance of these allegedly false claims. This is probably because there were none. Every single story I saw made it clear that these were allegations from Hamas, included whatever information was available from the Israeli government, and repeatedly stated that nothing was certain. There truly could not have been better early coverage. The information simply did not exist.

This is the earliest version of that story I could find from Reuters.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231017192141/https://www.reute...

But you could definitely argue that that article repeats the claims from Gaza too uncritically, which is why it was updated within seven minutes of publication to make it clearer the reports were unsubstantiated.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231017195440/https://www.reute...

But that still gives a one-sided story. They say that the Israeli government has yet to comment. Which is why the story was updated again to include information from the Israeli military, arriving at this version within an hour:

https://web.archive.org/web/20231017202059/https://www.reute...

The fog of war isn't just in video games. As usual, the New York Times has a good article on this subject.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/business/media/hospital-b...

You might argue (and I would argue) that it is irresponsible to publish any story at all when things are so uncertain. That's why I don't read breaking news.

P.S. There were "around 500" deaths. 200-300 is "around 500" when picking through rubble in a war zone.

A few points.

- Reuters leads by saying the reports come from "health officials", "Gaza health authorities", and "Palestinian health authorities", as if these are reliable third party agencies. These are all Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization that last week went on a killing spree murdering and brutalizing over a thousand civilians including the elderly and children. Reporting what they say without any actual verification is heinous and absolutely destroys their credibility.

> As usual, the New York Times has a good article on this subject

The New York times was one of the most egregious actors regarding what happened. They had a front page story about the hospital showing a completely different bombed building from the other side of Gaza as if that was the hospital that was destroyed [1]. I genuinely don't understand how people are not being fired over this.

> There were "around 500" deaths. 200-300 is "around 500" when picking through rubble in a war zone.

That's just it. There was no rubble. There was no 200-300 hundred deaths. Look at the photo. It was a parking lot that was set on fire with rocket fuel. The building was practically undamaged. People still act like the death toll numbers coming from Gaza are accurate when they are clearly not.

[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8uNSAbXoAABhR0?format=jpg&name=...

>Reuters leads by saying the reports come from "health officials", "Gaza health authorities", and "Palestinian health authorities", as if these are reliable third party agencies.

Hamas is the government of the Gaza strip. Anyone following the story should know that. Unfortunately, they're the most reliable source we have for much of this information.

I will admit that it could be made clearer. There are readers who are starting from a place of ignorance. A story should be written such that a 12 year old child could understand it. Also, there are two Palestinian governments and it's not always clear which is being referred to.

But the problem here is, I think, simply that writing is hard.

>They had a front page story about the hospital showing a completely different bombed building from the other side of Gaza as if that was the hospital that was destroyed [1].

The way you are framing this is inaccurate. The same picture had been on the front page for hours before the story of the explosion was published. It was not a part of that story. Here's a capture from hours before the story broke:

https://web.archive.org/web/20231017154440/https://www.nytim...

The caption for the picture also states that it is of a different city entirely.

I won't dispute that the design could be confusing. Also, I don't think such a picture belongs in a newspaper at all. It's useless and voyeuristic, serving more to shock than to inform. But this is clearly not a problem of dishonesty.

Besides, why would they lie? The actual pictures of the aftermath don't look any prettier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/world/middleeast/gaza-hos...

> The way you are framing this is inaccurate. The same picture had been on the front page for hours before the story of the explosion was published. It was not a part of that story. Here's a capture from hours before the story broke:

I did not know this, wow. I appreciate you pointing this out to me since i took the front page image at face value. Having said that, that perhaps slightly lessens the blame, as they should understand how it looks and should have updated the image accordingly.

I guess we agree that the story should have been covered better, as a trusted source of news should be take extra precautions before posting news stories like this.

My main take away from this entire situation is that i was better (and more accurately) informed by scrolling through twitter than a NY times or Reuters reader would have been. That's not a good thing and shows that their is something deeply wrong with our MSM.

I disagree more than I agree. I certainly wouldn't claim the New York Times or Reuters or the AP or NPR are perfect. But I would say they are flawed people doing important and difficult and unrewarding work and doing it better than nearly anyone else in the world. I doubt you'd be quite so positive.