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.
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.
Ah, I get the connection now, thanks. I’d imagine Reuters didn’t receive the same statement from their IDF sources as the Israel Times did, idk. I’d certainly prefer them to add that to the article, or subsequent reporting.
Edit: as of an hour ago Reuters is reporting the camera narrative from the IDF. They put quotes around “Hamas camera” in their story to indicate it’s just Israel’s narrative.
I’ll add my own editorial to this, claiming a camera is Hamas… fucking ridiculous.