Editors' notes, stealth edits, evolving headlines, and entries that are just so blatantly wrong that the press will not even bother to correct things out of a desire to hope no more notice is brought to the errors; these have been common practice across the media landscape since the October 7 attack on Israeli citizens. What is even more remarkable than these blatant misfires is that few appear willing to learn from their foibles. It is simply Churn-Spin-Repeat.
What is most glaring is that these are not simple logistical errors or misspellings from foreign locales – we are seeing major news reports being proven to be patently wrong. The latest was delivered this weekend by the Washington Post concerning the announcement of a brokered peace deal between the Israelis and Hamas. As reported by Karen DeYoung, it was said that a tentative agreement had been reached between the factions, one involving having 50 hostages exchanged for at least a temporary halt of the hostilities.
More than a couple of hours later, the story was “updated” — that is, it was edited but not announced as such. This was probably due to the National Security Council coming out to say it was still attempting to broker a deal, but nothing had been finalized. On Sunday, John Finer, a U.S. Deputy national security adviser, made the rounds on the talk circuit to say that the negotiations were still being hammered out — “On an issue as sensitive as this and as challenging is this, the mantra that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed really does apply.”
So, with several administration officials willing to go on the record to say nothing has been finalized, how does WaPo come out with this definitive report? By Sunday afternoon, after being challenged and after White House voices came forward with “ongoing” type of language, the article was amended with a Correction, but one that only managed to muddle.
A previous version of this article, headline and accompanying news alert incorrectly characterized The Post’s reporting about the status of negotiations among Israel, Hamas and the United States to pause conflict for five days and free women and children held hostage in Gaza. The article stated that the parties had agreed to a tentative deal. In fact, Israel and Hamas were close to a U.S.-brokered agreement. The article has been corrected.
This seems quite a lot to get wrong. The headline and the news alerts did not reflect the reporting? How does this take place unless there was an intent to sell something else? How does the report incorrectly characterize the reporting?! This kind of wildly inappropriate journalism has been an ongoing issue for The Post.
The paper was among the many who incorrectly reported on the infamous bombing of a hospital that was not, in fact, bombed. It struggled with the story of the Greek Orthodox church collapse, which is still standing. Then there is the Washington Post struggle over the IDF claims that Hamas is headquartered beneath the al-Shifa hospital. It is rather evident that the outlet is intent on casting Israel as the inappropriate aggressor at the location. Despite alluding to evidence such as a shaft opening at the location, as well as the body of an Israeli hostage found on site, the report refused to allow that Hamas was staged at the hospital.
Israel has yet to produce findings that corroborate its claims that al-Shifa sits atop a Hamas headquarters and was central to the militant group’s operations in northern Gaza.
It reports this despite the photographic evidence of weapons found in a bunker. Also, the US State Department, as well as the Pentagon, have affirmed that Hamas uses the hospital as a headquarters. This also is in conflict with years of media reports that have declared definitively that Hamas is staged there. One such media report was by…(get ready now)…The Washington Post.
The minister was turned away before he reached the hospital, which has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices.
To have a basic fact such as this confirmed by numerous sources for years and yet debated today is already a serious problem. To have a news outlet defying its own previous reports on the very issue is rather astounding to see. But this is the nature of the press currently. There is this need to deny certain realities because of their desire to have Israel cast as the villain — even if this means denying realities that have been reported by the very same outlets.