I repeat, once again, that the leftwing propaganda media claims that you should be censored for "disinformation," and they should not be, because on the rare (LOL) occasions they report lies, they spring into action to correct the lies and admit their errors.
They have in fact corrected zero lies and admitted zero errors, which makes this claim, itself, more disinformation.
The New York Times won't admit that yet. They're still trying to rescue their earlier disinformation. The most the Times will say is that Hamas has "not made the case" that it was an Israeli munition.
At Powerline, the New York Times' descent into the ignominy of a heroin junkie-whore of lies and propaganda continues.
Today the Times not only raises doubts about the veracity of its initial story, but attributes it to "the Hamas-run Gazan health ministry" (rather than "Gazan officials" or "the Gazan health ministry").
...
The Times comes to no definitive conclusion today. This is utterly abject: "Without examining the munition that hit the parking lot, it may be impossible to draw a definitive conclusion about who fired it."
It's like the fraudulent Rathergate documents whose authenticity was assessed in the appendix of the Thornburgh-Boccardi report commissioned by CBS: There might be a typewriter out there somewhere that incorporated the Times New Roman typeface even though it was never licensed to typewriters. It's possible! (No, it's not.)
From the Times:
Within an hour of the blast on Tuesday night, the Hamas-run Gazan health ministry accused Israel of attacking the Ahli Arab hospital, a medical center in Gaza City where scores of families had been sheltering. The allegation was soon denied by Israel but quickly accepted and amplified by Arab leaders across the Middle East, setting off unrest throughout the region. The claim was widely cited by international news outlets, including The New York Times, before Israel issued its denial.
You did more than "cite" the claim. You covered up the fact that this claim came from Hamas -- it's nice that you now admit the claim came from the "Hamas-run Gazan health ministry," but earlier you claimed it came from "health authorities." Which might mean UNESCO.
And your stories did not suggest that you were reporting "claims," but verified facts. There was not an iota of sketpicism in your "reportage," nor any emphasis on the fact that these were claims.
But in the days since, as new evidence contradicting the Hamas claim has emerged, the Gazan authorities have changed their story about the blast.
"New evidence"? Was there old evidence that has now been challenged?
No, there was never any evidence for Hamas' claims, but you ran these unevidenced claims as if they were facts.
Spokespeople have released death tolls varying from 500 to 833, before settling on 471.
The Hamas-run health ministry has also declined to release further details about those 471 victims, and all traces of the munition have seemingly vanished from the site of the blast, making it impossible to assess its provenance.
It was impossible earlier, too, and that didn't stop you from running huge-font headlines about the Slaughter That Never Was.
Raising further questions about Hamas's claims, the impact site turned out to be the hospital parking lot, and not the hospital itself.
Further questions? How about the first questions you're asking?!
On Sunday, Hamas turned down requests by The Times to view any available evidence of the munition it said had struck the hospital, claiming that it had disintegrated beyond recognition.
"The missile has dissolved like salt in the water," said Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas official, in a phone interview. "It's vaporized. Nothing is left."
Oh? Do huge munitions just "dissolve like salt in water"? I though these things were made of, you know, metal.