Above is a Times front page in which the paper piled on to the international criticism of Israel in the Left’s “Think of the Children!” effort to blame Jews for the consequences of the war Hamas started and refuses to end.
“Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, about 18 months, with his mother, Hedaya al-Mutawaq, who said he was born healthy but was recently diagnosed with severe malnutrition,” the original caption to the photo said. Evil Israel is starving innocent children to death! Then, five days after the story was published, on July 29, the Times issued an editor’s note (buried at the bottom of the article) as well as a brief statement on its communications social media page that corrected its story, writing that it “had learned” that the child had underlying medical issues that affected his muscle development. Otherwise it did not retract any part of the feature, “Gazans Are Dying of Starvation,” including its now especially dubious claim that the child was suffering from malnutrition due to food shortages.
The Times, in short, accepted a propaganda photo from Gaza sources without checking its authenticity, and made it the centerpiece of its front page. (So did CNN. Of course.) Sloppy, reckless, irresponsible, unethical journalism, and biased journalism, for such a photo could only be accepted at face value by a staff consumed with confirmation bias. As many have pointed out, the Times’ confession that the child’s appalling condition was not the result of food shortages in Gaza was published online in a forum with far fewer readers than the paper itself. It was reported elsewhere last week that the boy has “cerebral palsy, hypoxemia, and was born with a serious genetic disorder.”
President Trump, among others, took the bait and erupted in indignation about the starving children in Gaza, saying that he wanted to boost U.S. humanitarian efforts in Gaza, because the U.S. would have been so supportive of other nations sending humanitarian aide to Berlin during World War II. (If you don’t want your children to suffer, don’t start wars.)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he is considering legal action against the Times for “blood libel.” He can’t win, but I’d welcome the publicity. Better still would be if we had a top notch national newspaper that could be trusted, and that wouldn’t run with every progressive narrative no matter how contrived or misleading.
Ethics Alarms 
This post brings to mind that Rolling Stones song off of their 1981 Tattoo You album, “Waiting on A Friend.”
-Jut
“ ‘Waiting on A Friend.’ “
Heh! 1st thing that popped into my mind as well.
PWS
Jack wrote:
“Sloppy, reckless, irresponsible, unethical journalism, and biased journalism, for such a photo could only be accepted at face value by a staff consumed with confirmation bias.”
At what point do we start to believe that this is less about “reckless… biased journalism” than it is about malice aforethought? I think that train has left the station for sure by now.
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he is considering legal action against the Times for “blood libel.” He can’t win, but I’d welcome the publicity.”
He can’t? I’m not so sure. Justice Thomas has repeatedly suggested there is no Constitutional basis for the “actual malice” standard in NYT v. Sullivan, and this particular episode is so egregious that it could well be a vehicle for reconsideration of that precedent. This is exactly the sort of case that makes the “actual malice” standard look suspect, in my unprofessional opinion.
That’s something I conceded decades ago. I think it’s now time to concede that their readership would follow the NYT like the Pied Piper into the river to drown. The question is why? Stupidity? Ignorance? Political immaturity? Sure, all of those in part. But the liberal’s self-image as uniquely virtuous, so much so as to temporarily ease deep seated guilts and doubts, strategically cultivated by outlets such as NYT, is probably the most powerful reason. People in their “political youth” will follow…
In a related article, a WSJ opinion editor does an epic takedown of a preening WaPo “fact checker” who recently (and voluntarily) left his esteemed position.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-fact-checker-checks-out-washington-post-glenn-kessler-journalism-3b7ab7df?st=gDaNd7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Heh; near perfectly passive-aggressive, and a pleasure to read!
“The paper’s writers and editors lustily surrendered to the pressure to treat Mr. Trump’s rise as an emergency rather than as a story.”
I’d say; Post headline: The Campaign TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP Has Begun
The date? January 20, 2017.
PWS