Multiple prominent media organizations including The New York Times knew exactly what they were doing when they broadcast Hamas’ claim that Israeli conducted an airstrike on a hospital. Lawyers have been jailed for passing on the communications of clients convicted of terrorism. The media should face the same standard.
On October 17, multiple media organizations including The New York Times, CNN, the BBC, and others reported that Israel had conducted an airstrike on a hospital in the Gaza Strip, killing 500 innocent civilians. “At least 500 people were killed by an Israeli airstrike at a Gaza hospital, the Palestinian Health Ministry said,” The New York Times claimed in its initial news alert. “Hundreds feared dead or injured in Israeli air strike on hospital in Gaza, Palestinian officials say,” wrote the BBC in almost perfect unison. At first, there was no Israeli side of the story provided, or any attempt at all to contact the Israeli government to confirm or deny the accusations of the Palestinians. Instead, the accusation, which all of these organizations knew had been provided and approved by Hamas, a terrorist organization that had just slaughtered some 1,400 Israelis in the streets, is simply repeated verbatim – no fact check, no corroboration, no analysis, no witness accounts, nothing at all except broadcasting the word of cold blooded killers. Even beyond whether the Israeli government was responsible, there was the impression the bombing was intentional, not an accident of some kind or a missile that missed its target. The claim wasn’t simply that there was an explosion at a hospital in Gaza and the cause could’ve been an Israeli rocket according to the Palistineans. The media reported it specifically as an “Israeli air strike on a hospital in Gaza,” as if the plan all along was to attack a non military target for unexplained reasons and kill as many innocents as possible. Not surprisingly, that is the way the story was taken throughout much of the Middle East and even in some segments of the American progressive movement, sparking massive protests in multiple countries, leading to embassies being attacked and prompting the King of Jordan to cancel an important meeting with President Joe Biden on what was billed as a crucial trip to the region. A few in his own party went so far as to accuse him of blindly supporting murderers. Representative Rashid Tlaib, a progressive member of the squad, for example, called out the President directly on X and at demonstrations in Washington, DC that bordered on an insurrection to use the parlance of the day. “Israel just bombed the Baptist killing 500 Palestinians (doctors, children, patients) just like that,” she wrote on X. “@POTUS this is what happens when you refuse to facilitate a ceasefire & help de-escalate. Your war and destruction only approach has opened my eyes and many Palestinian Americans and Muslims Americans like me. We will remember where you stood.”
This outcome was all too foreseeable and predictable in a volatile situation. It is inconceivable that experienced journalists and editors were unaware what they might unleash by blindly reporting an unsubstantiated claim made by a terrorist organization in the early days of a war they started. That the claim itself might fall apart under scrutiny was also all too predictable. Therefore, I, at least, was not surprised when the Israeli government began releasing information that directly contradicted the initial report and instead indicated that a Hamas offshoot, Islamic Jihad, had accidently fired a missile from Gaza into a nearby building. The evidence provided in less than 24 hours was as close to indisputable as one can get short of sending in an FBI forensic team. First, they intercepted conversations between members of Islamic Jihad immediately after the explosion. One terrorist asked another, “Is that us?” and the other responds, “I think so.” Second, they released footage of the explosion which shows a projectile launching from an area near the hospital only to change course and descend back to the ground. Third, pictures of the explosion itself and the crater left behind didn’t match what we would expect from an Israeli munition. By Wednesday, the United States and other Western intelligence agencies had assessed that the blast was likely caused by a misfire within Gaza itself. The “other team” as President Biden so cavalierly, coldly, and oddly put it, and so the media started scrambling to change its story. Suddenly, there was no conclusive evidence of anyone’s culpability. The initial report might’ve been completely false, but journalistic integrity moving forward required the very features of the news business that should’ve been used all along, from supporting and corroborative evidence, to scrutiny, to fact checking. In other words, basic care and due diligence. Shashank Joshi, defense editor for The Economist, described it this way on X, “The evidence this morning, though NOT conclusive by any means, points more towards a failed rocket launch than an Israeli air strike.” By this Monday, The New York Times issued something of a correction bordering on an apology. “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 newspaper wrote. “The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was…Times editors should have taken more care with the initial presentation.”
This has led even progressive-friendly outlets such as The Atlantic to wonder “How the Media Got the Hospital Explosion Wrong.” Yascha Mounk wrote, somehow without a hint of irony, “The cause of the tragedy, it appears, is the opposite of what news outlets around the world first reported. Rather than having been an Israeli attack on civilians, the balance of evidence suggests that it was a result of terrorists’ disregard for the lives of the people on whose behalf they claim to be fighting.” Progressive Representative Ted Lieu went one step further, writing on X that “their rush to judgment caused other nations to wrongly interpret the hospital blast.” Ultimately, Mr. Mounk laments that the incident will result in an even further erosion of trust in the media, as if that was chief among our worries and there was any way anyone of sound mind and body could place their trust in these organizations. “Such a glaring example of major outlets messing up on a very consequential event helps explain why trust in traditional news media has been falling fast. As recently as 2003, eight out of 10 British respondents said that they ‘trust BBC journalists to tell the truth.’ By 2020, the share of respondents who said that they trust the BBC had fallen to fewer than one in two. Americans have been mistrustful of media for longer, but here, too, the share of respondents who say that they trust mass media to report ‘the news fully, accurately, and fairly’ has fallen to a near-record low.” At the same time, he seemed more than willing to accept that the incident was merely an honest mistake of the kind that necessarily will happen when reporting during a war, using phrases like “messing up” and “fouled up” to suggest sloppiness, carelessness, incompetence, or some combination are to be blamed rather than outright malice. To be sure, he doesn’t quite hold them entirely blameless, noting with some accuracy that “Journalists and media executives understandably tend to apportion blame for their failings elsewhere. If people no longer trust quality outlets, the fault must lie with the ‘misinformation’ they encounter on social media. But such an easy allocation of responsibility won’t work when, marching in unison, major news organizations seem to have fouled up in as blatant a way as they have over this past week.”
For better or worse, I cannot be nearly so forgiving. It is impossible for me to believe that these organizations didn’t know precisely what they were doing and as alluded to earlier, what the outcome would be. Clearly, everyone involved at whatever outlet you choose was aware that the sole source for the report was a terrorist organization that had just recently slaughtered more Jews in a single day than since the holocaust. The Times admitted as much when they noted “those claims could not immediately be verified,” meaning they ran with what Hamas itself said and nothing else. The idea that Hamas could be trusted in any situation, much less one of this magnitude, alleging an intentional airstrike on a hospital that would be a heinous war crime, without any corroboration is absurd. A healthy skepticism and some form of supporting evidence was the bare minimum required, and these organizations provided precisely none of either. The media was also aware that Israel was in the process of mounting a ground campaign into the Gaza Strip to destroy Hamas, and that Hamas’ would most likely rely on propaganda to generate sympathy for the plight of innocent Palestinians to halt or limit this invasion, as they have many times in the past. They have no hope of defeating Israel on the ground, but they might well prevail by claiming to be the victim as they have done here, prompting a backlash against Israel’s efforts to defend itself against unimaginable savagery as I have already written. The outcome – mass protests in the Middle East, worsening relations among the United States, Israel, and several Middle East countries, the United Nations getting involved, and progressive politicians latching on to the story – was entirely predictable as well, and could’ve been foreseen as soon as it was published. If indeed, this was some kind of honest mistake, those involved at The New York Times, the BBC, CNN, and elsewhere are too stupid and incompetent to hold their positions in the first place. They are not stupid, however. They knew exactly what they were doing and there is one way to find out: The Department of Justice should immediately launch an investigation into these outlets under the Patriot Act.
Hamas is a designated terrorist organization, and unquestionably promoting their propaganda is providing material support under the terms of the law. Title VIII identifies “material support for terrorism” as part of the “strengthening [of] criminal laws against terrorism.” The relevant section defines material support as “to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training – (aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity; (bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity; (cc) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or (dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization’s terrorist activity.” Every clause is fully satisfied in this case. The organizations in question knew precisely who they were dealing with, the atrocities that they had only recently committed along with a litany of past crimes, and willingly passed on communications on their behalf to further their goals. By any standard, they should have “reasonably” known the end result and cannot reasonably be said to “not know” publishing these non-verified stories would further “the organization’s terrorist activity.” There is no question that this is what they have done, and they did it willingly for no reason except to further Hamas’ goals. I understand some would say that prosecuting the media under this standard is not something we should consider, the classic bridge too far as they say, but there is something of a precedent. Lawyers representing their clients are usually considered beyond the reach of any prosecution as well given their unique role in the justice system and everyone being entitled to a vigorous defense, but the Patriot Act proved different. Lynne Stewart, a civil rights attorney, was charged and convicted for passing on the communications of her client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was serving a life sentence for planning terrorist attacks. Ms. Stewart herself served 4 years of a 10 year sentence before being released for health reasons. The prosecution prior to her conviction hinged on a single statement from Sheikh Abdel-Rahman that Ms. Stewart passed to Reuters indicating that he no longer supported a cease fire between a militant group and the Egyptian government. Ms. Stewarts’ critics and the prosecution argued that this message was an order for the Sheikh’s followers to commit violence. This was enough to be sentenced to a decade in jail. If the same standard were to be applied here, it is difficult to see how there would be a different outcome.
At the very least, a potential prosecution would investigate the decision making process at these organizations – or the lack of it. Even if you don’t agree that a media organization knowingly spreading terrorist propaganda is a prosecutable offense, clearly there are questions that need to be asked and answered. Did anyone at any of these organizations voice any concern at all that the report originated from a terrorist organization in the first place? Was any attempt made to corroborate or substantiate the claim? If not, why not? Did anyone contact Israel or attempt to contact Israel for their version of events before publishing? If not, why not? Did anyone question whether the story might be false in the first place? Did anyone note that their phrasing implied Israel had done this intentionally and not accidentally? Did anyone consider what might happen as a result of publishing an unsubstantiated story accusing Israel of killing hundreds of innocent civilians? If not, why not? These are the sort of basic fact-checking, due diligence, and appropriate concern for potential impact that most people expect when they read a report from a supposedly reputable source. This is what we required to warrant the title of journalist and editor. It also happens to be what they themselves claim when it suits their purposes. When they rail against the negative effects of “misinformation,” they are implicitly supporting the idea that today’s social media driven environment requires gatekeepers to ensure the accuracy of information prior to its publication. When they insist that they cannot cover former President Trump live, they are basing this on the belief that his words need to be filtered through their fact checking and editorial processes. Here, however, we have found that either they have none of what they claim or they are willingly aiding and abetting terrorists by flagrantly ignoring their own best practices. The choice here is either or, and unfortunately, neither is a good option. I say investigate them, prosecute them, let them explain themselves, and see what happens, especially as this is not merely an academic, backward looking issue. Their decision last week likely cost some people their lives with more to come. They cannot be trusted, and should be made to pay for it.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 