There is significant evidence to indicate that Hamas carried out sexual violence against women during the surprise assault that killed at least 1,200 Israelis, as CNN and other outlets have repeatedly reported.
And, as The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim, and Daniel Boguslaw pointed out in their story, “The Times report mentions WhatsApp messages from Abdush and her husband to their family, but doesn’t mention that some family members believe that the crucial messages make the Israeli officials’ claims implausible.” In a subsequent story published a month later, The Times noted that some members of the Abdush family “have denied or cast doubt on that possibility, including another brother-in-law who said he spoke to Ms. Abdush’s husband before he was killed.”
“We weren’t aware of the rape initially; we were informed only when The New York Times’ journalist approached us,” her mother told the Israeli outlet YNet.
Vanity Fair’s Charlotte Klein reported Thursday that the newspaper had taken the rare step of launching a leak investigation, questioning “at least two dozen staffers” about “how internal details about the podcasts’s editorial process got out.”
When key elements of a story are not supported with transparent and unimpeachable evidence, or when a reporter publicly engages in inappropriate behavior on social media, it can damage a news organization’s vital credibility.
But the Times, by opening its story with an anecdote later called into question by the victim’s family, along with the troubling actions of a freelancer, has left critics with plenty of material to sow doubt.
The original article contains 948 words, the summary contains 253 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
There is significant evidence to indicate that Hamas carried out sexual violence against women during the surprise assault that killed at least 1,200 Israelis, as CNN and other outlets have repeatedly reported.
And, as The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim, and Daniel Boguslaw pointed out in their story, “The Times report mentions WhatsApp messages from Abdush and her husband to their family, but doesn’t mention that some family members believe that the crucial messages make the Israeli officials’ claims implausible.” In a subsequent story published a month later, The Times noted that some members of the Abdush family “have denied or cast doubt on that possibility, including another brother-in-law who said he spoke to Ms. Abdush’s husband before he was killed.”
“We weren’t aware of the rape initially; we were informed only when The New York Times’ journalist approached us,” her mother told the Israeli outlet YNet.
Vanity Fair’s Charlotte Klein reported Thursday that the newspaper had taken the rare step of launching a leak investigation, questioning “at least two dozen staffers” about “how internal details about the podcasts’s editorial process got out.”
When key elements of a story are not supported with transparent and unimpeachable evidence, or when a reporter publicly engages in inappropriate behavior on social media, it can damage a news organization’s vital credibility.
But the Times, by opening its story with an anecdote later called into question by the victim’s family, along with the troubling actions of a freelancer, has left critics with plenty of material to sow doubt.
The original article contains 948 words, the summary contains 253 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!