The war raging in the Mideast obviously has vast international implications. Opinions are largely based on reporting by the national television and cable networks and a handful of national news outlets like The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press.
Getting at the full truth of what is happening in any war is impossible. Aside from the limited access reporters have to wartime operations, there is the expanse of the geography that precludes reporters having first-hand access to some events. Seeking to get the truth to pass along to readers and viewers, skilled reporters are trained to be skeptical of news sources. Reporters know that advocates for one side or the other will lie to them, no doubt justifying some greater good, particularly in war time.
So, what’s a reporter to do when he or she can’t independently verify what a source is saying? Often, they rely on sources with whom they have a past relationship and a proven history of accuracy. That’s no guarantee they’re not being lied to, but, until proven otherwise, reporters usually trust those sources. When I was a reporter I would tell a source, “Lie to me once and I will never trust what you say again.”
When Israel said 1,400 people were massacred on Oct. 7 by Hamas terrorists who crossed the border into Israel, there were few who questioned the number. There were bodies witnessed by reporters, such as at the music festival where several hundred were shot and killed. Did Israel release a list of names or otherwise back up the reported number? I don’t know, but I’d be surprised if the number wasn’t questioned.
Now, with the counterattack by Israel from the air and on the ground in Gaza, Hamas is releasing body counts daily, asserting that many if not most are children. We’ve seen video of injured and dead children. But does anyone really know the numbers? Israel does not deny that civilians have been killed in its effort to “destroy” Hamas and its leadership. I argue we should not trust Hamas figures because Hamas has proven repeatedly it is willing to lie. However, neither should the media ignore what they say.
The New York Times and others were properly criticized when they seemed to accept without qualification or verification that Israel had bombed a Gaza hospital, killing 500 civilians. It turned out that Israel and the U.S. independently released information proving that an errant Islamic Jihad rocket was the cause of the deaths. The errant rocket also hit next to the hospital, not the hospital itself, and maybe fewer than 100 were killed. Any loss of life is tragic, particularly of innocent civilians, but there is a significant and qualitative difference between the Oct. 7 slaughter by Hamas and civilians killed by an errant rocket or Israeli missiles in wartime.
The New York Times corrected its original account as to the source of the explosion and the body count, but it was too late. From the start the paper needed to immediately qualify what Hamas said, or at a minimum state the information could not be verified.
The media should report what Hamas says but should not accept statements as fact without proof. Reporters commonly use adjectives like claimed, reportedly and allegedly when writing about someone accused of a crime. Why aren’t they using those terms more often when quoting unverifiable statements from Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization?
During the Vietnam War, I asked a friend who served as a public information office for the U.S. Army in Vietnam how the U.S. determined the weekly count of enemy troops killed. He responded, “We take whatever our losses are and multiply by 10.” I was never entirely sure if he was totally serious, but things like body counts dramatically affect the narrative in this dispute.
We need to be holding our most important news outlets to the highest possible standards because they shape our views of a seemingly growing war.
Bob Rawitch spent 28 years as a reporter and editor at the L.A. Times.
