You wrote that the report claims the headline “Israeli Airstrike Killed 500 At A Gaza Hospital, Palestinians Say,” had five errors in 10 words. But I think from a literal perspective the headline is accurate due to the attribution at the end. It’s sort of like running this headline: ‘Trump says Haitian immigrants eat neighbors’ pets.’ Yes, that’s what Trump said, and yes, that’s what Hamas said. The question is whether to report claims that are not verified (or likely false) made by groups or individuals that are known for spreading falsehoods and have an agenda to do so. If the Times ran the headline about the Gaza hospital because it is inclined to believe Hamas, so they decided to go with it in spite of lacking factual confirmation and in spite of Israel’s denials, that’s their bias. If they ran it because they believe in general that ‘Israel does things like that’ so specific facts don’t matter, that’s their bias. But this is much harder to catch them on because it’s not based on facts.
You wrote that the report claims the headline “Israeli Airstrike Killed 500 At A Gaza Hospital, Palestinians Say,” had five errors in 10 words. But I think from a literal perspective the headline is accurate due to the attribution at the end. It’s sort of like running this headline: ‘Trump says Haitian immigrants eat neighbors’ pets.’ Yes, that’s what Trump said, and yes, that’s what Hamas said. The question is whether to report claims that are not verified (or likely false) made by groups or individuals that are known for spreading falsehoods and have an agenda to do so. If the Times ran the headline about the Gaza hospital because it is inclined to believe Hamas, so they decided to go with it in spite of lacking factual confirmation and in spite of Israel’s denials, that’s their bias. If they ran it because they believe in general that ‘Israel does things like that’ so specific facts don’t matter, that’s their bias. But this is much harder to catch them on because it’s not based on facts.