New York Times Says in Editors’ Note It ‘Relied Too Heavily’ on Hamas Claims About Hospital Blast

AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

The New York Times took the rare step of publishing a stand-alone editors’ note addressing its coverage of the attack on a hospital in Gaza believed to have killed hundreds of people.

The Times first reported news of the explosion at Gaza City’s al-Ahli hospital on Oct. 17. At the time, the Times and other major outlets, like the Associated Press, reported the information they had: That the Gaza Health Ministry, which is overseen by terror group Hamas, claimed the mass casualty attack was the result of an Israeli airstrike.

“Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say,” read the initial Times headline.

The story had prominent placement, as the Times pointed out in its editor’s note: “The report included a large headline at the top of The Times’s website.”

Within hours, Israel had denied launching the strike. They said the explosion was the consequence of an errant rocket fired by Palestinian group Islamic Jihad.

In the days since, the United States and France have said early intelligence supports Israel’s version of events. Analyses of the video published by CNN, AP and The Wall Street Journal support that version as well.

Now, the Times says it “relied too heavily on claims by Hamas” in its initial reporting on the strike:

The Times’s initial accounts attributed the claim of Israeli responsibility to Palestinian officials, and noted that the Israeli military said it was investigating the blast. 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. The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was.

“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,” the Times wrote.