Every known element of the story was suspect from the beginning

From It's easy to screw up on breaking news. But you have to admit when you do. by Nate Silver.  The subheading is This week brought another self-inflected wound for trust in journalism.

I broadly agree with most his points.  Including an acknowledgement that news reporting is hard, that there is a fog around fast breaking emerging stories.  The challenge to the credibility of the mainstream media is when there is a pattern

Of poor sourcing of stories.  

 

Of producing headlines which have high uncertainty. 

 

Of not updating information quickly enough.

Of establishing a perceived pattern of bias.

Of failing to acknowledge failure.

The New York Times failed significantly on all five points as Silver (a former New York Times employee) documents.

In case you can’t see that image, the headline reads: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinian Officials Say.”

Almost every word of that first clause is now disputed. The Israeli Defense Forces said that the blast was the result of a misfire from a Hamas rocket, and President Biden, citing Department of Defense evidence, has backed that claim. Also, the explosion appears to have hit a parking lot adjacent to the hospital, not the hospital itself. And it remains unclear what the death toll was — but forensic evidence doesn’t seem to be particularly consistent with a three-figure number. I’m sure you can find better summaries of the various claims and counterclaims elsewhere; I’m deliberately trying to be circumspect as I make a broader point about the news business.

To be even more explicit.  The New York Times led with a story of an Israeli war atrocity perpetrated against a hospital resulting in 500 deaths.  As best we can tell two or three days later, it seems like

This was a Palestinian friendly fire incident resulting from a failed Palestinian rocket launch against Israel.

The rocket struck the parking lot, not the hospital.

The damage was from fire, not an explosion.

Perhaps 50-100 people might have been killed (displaced persons in the area, not hospital patients and number still not known), not 500.

This was known immediately by the Palestinian Hamas and almost immediately by the Israelis and within a few hours by independent observers.

The Palestinian rocket, had it not failed, could just as easily have struck an Israeli hospital. 

The dependence of Western news organizations on "reporters" approved by Hamas has been a long established issue which should, of course, have been a huge red flag to the New York Times.  The New York Times led with a loaded accusation from an unreliable source with no supporting evidence.  And they wish for brand status and trust from readers.