For a “rapidly published article” the writers of the article seemingly had the time to include irrelevant details about the flags in front of the israeli embassy symbolizing the hostages taken by Hamas
All the information was available in a two minute video. There is no ambiguity. Even if NPR would not agree with the statements that were made they could have still verbatim quoted them as they are so happy to do for every statement made by the IDF. The video was circulating everywhere online.
So should we automatically believe every video that circulates online? Basic journalistic standards require verification of any source. As has already been pointed out, the article was updated with the relevant information once it was available and verified. This is common practice among every news source that publishes online.
Journalists have two options in the midst of a developing story. They can rely on rumor and instinct to publish whatever version of the story they think is the truth, and if they get it wrong, update the retraction later. Or they can wait until they have verified information, and report on only what they know. Frankly, I think there are too many sources out there who do the former, and too few who take the latter path.
You’re upset over basic journalistic standards and projecting them into something they’re not. There’s a reason that articles published online list the date/time of the most recent update, not just the time of publication.
For a “rapidly published article” the writers of the article seemingly had the time to include irrelevant details about the flags in front of the israeli embassy symbolizing the hostages taken by Hamas
All the information was available in a two minute video. There is no ambiguity. Even if NPR would not agree with the statements that were made they could have still verbatim quoted them as they are so happy to do for every statement made by the IDF. The video was circulating everywhere online.
So should we automatically believe every video that circulates online? Basic journalistic standards require verification of any source. As has already been pointed out, the article was updated with the relevant information once it was available and verified. This is common practice among every news source that publishes online.
Journalists have two options in the midst of a developing story. They can rely on rumor and instinct to publish whatever version of the story they think is the truth, and if they get it wrong, update the retraction later. Or they can wait until they have verified information, and report on only what they know. Frankly, I think there are too many sources out there who do the former, and too few who take the latter path.
You’re upset over basic journalistic standards and projecting them into something they’re not. There’s a reason that articles published online list the date/time of the most recent update, not just the time of publication.
There were no basic journalistic standards applied. They had full access to the video and quote and knew his exact motivations.
His name was correctly spelled. His motivations “forgotten”.
If journalists do not know why they are writing an article they should not write the article.