This CNN story omits an important point - co-author of the original article Anat Schwartz was previously an intelligence officer for the Israeli Air Force. She also had no real journalistic experience at all before writing that article for the New York Times. The 2nd of 3 co-authors was Schwartz's nephew.

So the New York Times hired an ex-IDF intelligence officer without any journalistic experience and her nephew to be 2 out of 3 journalists covering one of the most sensational/impactful stories of the last year. The story was controversial within the newsroom and it's reported that a podcast based on that story was allegedly pulled due to fierce concerns about accuracy (the NYT denies this). It's also reported that Schwartz liked/upvoted social media posts comparing Palestinians to animals and encouraging the IDF to "violate any norm" to kill them. Now the NYT is saying "we don't comment on internal matters" and the CNN articles says:

"Vanity Fair’s Charlotte Klein reported Thursday that the newspaper had taken the rare step of launching a leak investigation, questioning “at least two dozen staffers” about “how internal details about the podcasts’s editorial process got out.”

All of this sounds like damage control following a very serious lapse in quality control. There's no denying the violence of Hamas' Oct. 7th attack, but that doesn't absolve journalists from the obligation to be diligent, unbiased, and accurate. I'd argue the seriousness of the situation and the violence of the Israeli response actually makes it much more important for journalists to be very careful. Once a false report is published by a respected outlet, the genie is out of the bottle and misinformation can lead to justification of ugly actions. "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on it's shoes".

In this case, there is a large volume of evidence to indicate that Hamas carried out sexual assaults during the October 7 attack. But the Times, by opening its story with an anecdote later called into question by the victim’s family, along with the troubling actions of a freelancer, has left critics with plenty of material to sow doubt.

*Critisizes NY Times for using non-existent evidence for claim

*Says claim is still true regardless

*Doesn't cite any evidence

Human centipede of news reporting. It's god damn 2024. We have 4k video of people getting shot and blow to bits, but they can't even name the number of so called rape victims because Israel forgot to make up an imaginary number on top of making their 9999999th fake claim.

Yeah, the NYT also stands by all its "reporting" of whatever the spokespeople of cops want them to say, so I'd take their assurances and protestations of editorial integrity with about this much salt:

NYT taking the tried and proven israel approach of just standing with your obvious lie. The Shaggy Defense is truly unbeatable.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

There is significant evidence to indicate that Hamas carried out sexual violence against women during the surprise assault that killed at least 1,200 Israelis, as CNN and other outlets have repeatedly reported.

And, as The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim, and Daniel Boguslaw pointed out in their story, “The Times report mentions WhatsApp messages from Abdush and her husband to their family, but doesn’t mention that some family members believe that the crucial messages make the Israeli officials’ claims implausible.” In a subsequent story published a month later, The Times noted that some members of the Abdush family “have denied or cast doubt on that possibility, including another brother-in-law who said he spoke to Ms. Abdush’s husband before he was killed.”

“We weren’t aware of the rape initially; we were informed only when The New York Times’ journalist approached us,” her mother told the Israeli outlet YNet.

Vanity Fair’s Charlotte Klein reported Thursday that the newspaper had taken the rare step of launching a leak investigation, questioning “at least two dozen staffers” about “how internal details about the podcasts’s editorial process got out.”

When key elements of a story are not supported with transparent and unimpeachable evidence, or when a reporter publicly engages in inappropriate behavior on social media, it can damage a news organization’s vital credibility.

But the Times, by opening its story with an anecdote later called into question by the victim’s family, along with the troubling actions of a freelancer, has left critics with plenty of material to sow doubt.

The original article contains 948 words, the summary contains 253 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!