New York Times publishes note on coverage of Gaza hospital blast 

The New York Times published a lengthy editor’s note Monday responding to criticism of its coverage of a deadly blast at a hospital in Gaza last week amid the ongoing fighting between Israel and Hamas.

The Times wrote that its initial coverage of the explosion Oct. 17 — and accompanying headline, news alerts and social posts — “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 the account was,” it said.

The New York Times was among many news agencies that quickly reported on claims from Hamas health officials that an Israeli air strike killed some 500 people at the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in the Gaza Strip.

However, Israel issued outright denials of its role within hours, and the next day, the United States said initial intelligence suggested the blast was caused by an errant rocket fired by the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad.

Still, the blast has sparked widespread protests and fueled anger at Israel across the Arab world. And regional countries, including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, have blamed Israel for the explosion.

The explosion came just days after a terrorist attack in Israel carried out by Hamas that reignited fighting in the region, with mounting fears of a widening conflict.

In the U.S., the Israel-Hamas war has inflamed tensions over Israel’s control over Palestinian territories. Progressive groups have been leading protests across the country calling for an immediate ceasefire in the conflict.

Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu (Calif.) accused the New York Times last week of bad-faith reporting with its coverage of the Gaza hospital blast.

“They intentionally wrote an attention grabbing headline that falsely pointed the blame at Israel to generate clicks during breaking news, without waiting for confirmation or the actual facts,” he wrote on X, formerly called Twitter.

The Times said its editors should have been more careful.

“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,” it said in its note Monday.

“Newsroom leaders continue to examine procedures around the biggest breaking news events — including for the use of the largest headlines in the digital report — to determine what additional safeguards may be warranted.”