She made particular reference to Reuters’ reporting on Israel’s killing of prominent Al-Jazeera journalist Anas Al-Sharif and six other media workers on August 10, saying the agency had “perpetuate[d] Israel’s propaganda”. She said it had been “wilfully abandoning the most basic responsibility of journalism” by publishing the “baseless claim” from the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) that Al-Sharif was an operative for Hamas.
An initial report published by Reuters received backlash after running with the headline: “Israel kills Al Jazeera journalist it says was Hamas leader”.
Zink said she could no longer wear her press pass without feeling “shame and grief”, as she shared an image of her press card snapped in half alongside her statement.
I can understand that view, but I think it’s newsworthy to know what a government is claiming in order to be able to refute the claim. As I said, the article makes it very clear that nothing the Israeli government has claimed is verified and they cite multiple sources that counter Israel’s narrative.
So Reuters reported that Israel bombed the hospital on purpose because they saw a camera right?
https://archive.is/iLqRZ
They did report on what the IDF statement regarding the strike was. No mention of a camera in that statement. Not sure what the Times of Israel has to do with this
This was what the Israeli military published in Hebrew.
But pray tell why Reuters would only publish Netanyahu’s lies when Israel is literally contradicting it in their own newspapers.
Israel killed a Reuters journalist here by the way.
They didn’t only publish Israel’s claims, and to be clear I firmly believe Israel is completely full of shit. Their story includes multiple statements from Al Jazeera, UN human rights office, and Qatari government sources refuting Israel’s lies.
Why doesn’t it include the Israeli military as a source which says that Israel did it on purpose?
It seems fairly important to cite the literal perpetrators instead of just the PR department.
Also as noted in the summary of the article, when Anas Al Sharif was killed by Israel, Reuters directly put the IDF lie in the headline without refuting it.
Ah, I get the connection now, thanks. I’d imagine Reuters didn’t receive the same statement from their IDF sources as the Israel Times did, idk. I’d certainly prefer them to add that to the article, or subsequent reporting.
Edit: as of an hour ago Reuters is reporting the camera narrative from the IDF. They put quotes around “Hamas camera” in their story to indicate it’s just Israel’s narrative.
I’ll add my own editorial to this, claiming a camera is Hamas… fucking ridiculous.
Removed by mod
It would also be prudent to mention that Israel has a history of lying about this particular topic. They didn’t have any issues making that claim attachment when Russia was encroaching on Crimea, and the Kremlin was denying it.
I just went back to some 2014 articles about Crimea and I’m not finding what you’re referencing, can you give me a hand?
It’s pretty much impossible to find an article where the journalist treats the Russian soldiers as unknown or neutral parties and almost just as hard to find articles that give the full statements from the Kremlin without the implication being that it’s not a proper explanatory statement given the situation. The reason is the statements filling the majority of the body are from western sources, which were more reputable in that instance.
To your point on covering Israel, it would be in the interest of telling the story accurately to mention that journalists are vetted through the IDF and all footage is subject to that vetting as well as who is allowed in. The factual model you present breaks down when access is limited, both by the IDF killing journalists and by limiting the eyes on the ground journalists, their equipment, their film, and their employees at every level. If you control the opposition’s ability to communicate reality, then you win under that model, but other news models like what Zeteo does mentions those things and the perspective is prioritized with the proper rarity and reputation that it actually has.
I didn’t know that about the vetting of journalists. You think there is access journalism at play in terms of the favorable treatment in articles or is it just plain old bias?
It’s both. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you as hard as it might deserve to be bitten. Selection bias is the main thing I see in news. They wouldn’t have that position long if they engaged in wrong-think or pointed the camera in the wrong class’ direction.
A claim not published needs no refutation.
Reporting what people say is the domain of gossip magazines. Report the facts of what people do.
The claim is published by Israel regardless of whether or not Reuters reports it. Reporting what governments say is the job of the media as the fourth estate, imo.
Not exactly. To paraphrase the well known example, the job of the fourth estate is not to say “the government says it’s raining”. It is to look outside and tell us if the government is telling the truth.