Nate Silver on the media not admitting when they got it wrong
Nate Silver writes:
On Tuesday night local time — Tuesday afternoon New York time — there was an explosion near a hospital in Gaza City. At 2:32 p.m. the Times sent subscribers like me the following news alert: …
In case you can’t see that image, the headline reads: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinian Officials Say.”
Almost every word of that first clause is now disputed. The Israeli Defense Forces said that the blast was the result of a misfire from a Hamas rocket, and President Biden, citing Department of Defense evidence, has backed that claim. Also, the explosion appears to have hit a parking lot adjacent to the hospital, not the hospital itself. And it remains unclear what the death toll was — but forensic evidence doesn’t seem to be particularly consistent with a three-figure number. I’m sure you can find better summaries of the various claims and counterclaims elsewhere; I’m deliberately trying to be circumspect as I make a broader point about the news business. …
Shouldn’t newsrooms just be more careful in these situations? The short answer is “yes”. The Times’s excuse is basically that it was just passing along a newsworthy claim made by a Palestinian spokesperson. I don’t think that really works, however.
Sure, technically, the claim in the Times news alert was attributed. “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinian Officials Say” (emphasis added). But that’s not how most readers see it, particularly when the attribution comes at the end of the sentence. They’ll see ISRAELI STRIKE KILLS HUNDREDS IN HOSPITAL (palestinian officials say). The Times is providing some degree of dignity and veracity to that claim by printing it, just as it would if it sent out a breaking news alert that said:
“U.F.O. Cited Over Manhattan, Nate Silver Says”
If it later turned out that the “U.F.O.” had just been a 747 landing at LaGuardia, and I’d made the claim while tripping on psychedelic mushrooms, this wouldn’t really absolve the Times for printing it without some independent verification or a second source.
Worth reading the entire piece, which is about how the NY Times especially won’t admit it was wrong with its initial reporting, and that this is part of why trust in media has fallen so much.