On October 17, The New York Times published news of an explosion at a hospital in Gaza City, prefacing its coverage with claims by Hamas government officials that an Israeli airstrike was the cause and that hundreds of people had been killed or injured. The report featured a large headline at the top of the Times website.
Israel subsequently denied guilt, blaming a faulty rocket launch by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad group, which in turn denied responsibility. American and other international officials said their evidence suggested the missile came from Palestinian fighting positions.
The Times’ initial reports attributed the claim of Israeli responsibility to Palestinian officials and noted that the Israeli military said it was investigating the explosion. However, the early versions of the reporting – and the prominence it gained in headlines, news stories and social media channels – relied too heavily on Hamas claims and did not make it clear that these claims could not be immediately verified. The report left readers with a false impression of what was known and how credible the account was.
The Times continued to update its reporting as more information became available, reporting on the disputed claims of responsibility and noting that the death toll may be lower than initially reported. Within two hours, the headline and other text at the top of the site reflected the scale of the explosion and the dispute over responsibility.
Given the sensitivity of the news during an escalating conflict and the high-profile publicity it received, Times editors should have taken more care in the initial presentation and made clearer what information could be verified. Newsroom leaders continue to review procedures surrounding the biggest breaking news events – including the use of the biggest headlines in the digital report – to determine what additional protections may be warranted.