News outlets backtrack on Gaza blast after relying on Hamas as key source

The news coverage was said to help inspire furious protests across the Middle East that scuttled some of President Biden's efforts at easing tensions through diplomacy. The Israeli government accused the BBC of a "modern blood libel," invoking centuries-old slanders against Jews as killers. That came after the BBC's Jon Donnison told viewers just hours after the incident, "The Israeli military has been contacted for comment and they say they are investigating. But it is hard to see what else this could be, really, given the size of the explosion, other than an Israeli airstrike or several airstrikes."

The BBC later issued a statement citing the full breadth of its coverage but saying that the degree of speculation in his report was, in retrospect, wrong.

On Monday, The New York Times went further. It publicly acknowledged that its initial coverage had served its readers — and the facts — poorly. It relied upon allegations from Hamas government officials to report that an Israeli missile strike had killed hundreds of civilians at the hospital. "The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was," Times editors wrote.

The explosion at the Al Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City has quickly become a case study on the miscommunication risks of always-on, hair-trigger digital news.

Before the facts were clear, the 24/7 news cycle shaped public opinion. The pressure to break the story exacerbated an already volatile situation.

Initial reports from major news outlets - fuelled by Hamas’ statements - hastily blamed an Israeli airstrike, sparking widespread outrage and protests in the Middle East. This disrupted diplomatic efforts to ease tensions. Subsequent U.S. and Canadian intelligence assessments, alongside Israeli government assertions, pointed to a failed rocket attack by another militant group as the explosion's cause, casting doubt on the earlier reports.

Major news organizations like The New York Times and BBC backtracked, amending their initial coverage. They acknowledged the danger of rushing to publish unverified information. And seemingly acknowledged that erroneously relying on Hamas, a terrorist group fresh off a brutal massacre, for primary information further muddled their facts. The incident revealed the delicate balance between timely news and thorough verification, especially in volatile geopolitics.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Misinformation and a lack of clarity can escalate tensions at an insane speed in an era of constant, instant communication. Nuance is neglected far too often in pursuit of owning the moment through a notification or a post.

In contentious conflicts like Israel-Hamas, accurate communication is crucial for setting the record straight. Openly sharing factual information - and only factual information - could counter propaganda. But the rush to be first online squashes any chance of that happening.

Hamas was likely responsible for the deaths of up to 300 civilians at the Hospital. That is where the facts have landed. If news organisations who have a reputation for authenticity and respectability had held off publishing the unverified claims surrounding the news - if they had simply reported on the explosion and the loss of life without publishing the Hamas blame game - we'd be having a very different dialogue.

The media needs to find a way to practice restraint where facts are unclear, even if it means missing out on "first blood." And both Government and media need to build a symbiotic relationship that allows an accurate portrayal of geopolitical events, conflicts and crises in a digital news landscape.

Bridging communication gaps can foster understanding and cooperation, and it can mitigate risks. Without it, we're going to see a media drifting further from reality, truth and facts, an audience becoming estranged from mainstream reporting, and a government that reveals less and holds back more out of distrust.

We face a growing and critical need for precise communication. Addressing deficits and fostering transparency can significantly improve stability in our interconnected, online world. The hospital explosion has to be a reminder of the deadly stakes of communication in the digital age.

Precise, transparent digital communication is going to play a vital role in fostering international relations, and an informed populace who rely on the media to diligently verify sensitive stories and prevent escalating hostility in a 24/7 news cycle.

@Westenberg logo
Subscribe to @Westenberg and never miss a post.