In “Editors’ Note: Gaza Hospital Coverage” (10/23/23), the NY Times attempts to apologize for a front-page top-of-the-fold error which falsely blamed Israel for a Gaza Hospital attack parroting Hamas saying that it killed hundreds. If the Times were doctors, they would permanently lose their licenses. This isn't just a little "whoops” -- this is journalistic malpractice. And the best the Times could offer in this "editors' note" was that they left the readers with an "incorrect impression" and they "should have taken more care... given the sensitive nature."  The Times didn't have the courage to even use the word "correction" and certainly not "error" in the headline of the "note." And they certainly didn't apologize noting how riots and protests spread worldwide after such reports.

How did all this happen? To the Times, why not take the word of a terrorist organization without a modicum of fact checking. Their problem is they are afflicted with confirmation bias -- they believed that Israel would do such a thing, despite no evidence, so why double check?  They do this over and over again. The Times clearly would benefit from internal training starting with reflection on why they have this bias.

Lastly, the Times did not apologize for the large photo that accompanied the Gaza Hospital attack showing a destroyed building. The building was not the hospital at all and readers who skip the captions -- which they often do -- would have concluded it was the hospital. And we all know a picture is worth a thousand words.

The NY Times doesn't deserve to recover from this -- how can anyone ever believe them again? An article with such a prominent positioning on the front page of what is known as the number one newspaper in America goes past many eyes to review before it is published. They all missed it. 

The fact that this "miss" was against the most discriminated people in the history of the world amounted to a blood libel. Jews are well accustomed to this discrimination, having suffered the consequences of it for over millennia. This is a systemic problem at the Times -- this does not deserve glossing over as was the Times’ intention with their "editors' note." 

Image: New York Times