The Hamas Health Ministry and the Israel-Israeli Attack on the Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City: A New Look at a Report from the New York Times

The Hamas health ministry accused Israel of attacking the Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza City within an hour of the blast. Arab leaders in the Middle East accepted the allegation and set off unrest in the region. The claim was widely cited by international news outlets, including The New York Times, before Israel issued its denial.

But in the days since, as new evidence contradicting the Hamas claim has emerged, the Gazan authorities have changed their story about the blast. The spokesman has released death tolls varying from 500 to 833.

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 has been destroyed.” Nothing is left.

Salama Maroof, the head of the Hamas-run government media office, said in a text message: “Who says we’re obligated to present the remnants of every rocket that kills our people? You can research and confirm from the evidence we have.

The Times reported that the blast was being investigated by the Israeli military, and that the claims of Israeli responsibility were attributed to Palestinian officials. However, the early versions of the coverage — and the prominence it received in a headline, news alert and social media channels — relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified. The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible it was.

The Times continued to update its coverage as more information became available, reporting the disputed claims of responsibility and noting that the death toll might be lower than initially reported. The scope of the explosion and the dispute over responsibility can be seen in the headline and other text at the top of the website.

Given the sensitive nature of the news during a widening conflict, and the prominent promotion it received, Times editors should have taken more care with the initial presentation, and been more explicit about what information could be verified. The use of the biggest headlines in the digital report is just one of the procedures being examined by the newsroom leaders.