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.
It’s sickening how these outlets literally side with a government against their own innocent murdered workers. Some of them would literally side against their lived experience if they narrowly escaped and lived to talk about it. All for a country that perfectly personifies the term “cry-bully.”
It’s also sick how the media just moves on despite the repeated targeted murders of their colleagues.
I just went and read the article, I see nothing wrong with the headline or their reporting. The article is full of refutations of Israel’s claim and is clear that none of Israel’s claims have been corroborated.
Reuters is a newswire. They’re always going to report what the parties involved are saying in a dry and dispassionate manner. Not everything needs to be an editorial. They do the same thing when it comes to Russian attacks in Ukraine. They’ll share what TASS is saying while noting that they cannot corroborate the narrative.
Probably because the article and the headline were not created by the same person. Putting Israel’s claim in the headline puts its legitimacy above all others and makes it the default narrative. Given their consistent dishonesty, Reuters should know better. Especially when it comes to a (former?) employee.
Yeah I recall people getting similarly mad at them using Russian claims in the headline. Definitely not best practice from my POV.
They should not be repeating lies.
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.
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?
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.
What you describe isn’t how it always was. News have grown accustomed to skating by with nothing but police statements, for the most obvious example, to make very bold claims. The obsession with being early and the risk of bucking the system of power only to be proven wrong later has been crippling for media integrity.