What happens when a major newspaper that is highly critical of Israel (and has been for decades) is presented with a very negative story about that country? Does the newspaper fully check the story for accuracy before printing it?
Well, in the case of the New York Times, apparently the answer is no.
From David Strom’s truly disturbing article for hotair.com we have this:
At issue is a piece published by the Times in which 65 medical personnel who have worked in Gaza during the Israeli operation accuse soldiers of deliberately targeting Gazan children, shooting them in the head. There are lurid stories and X-ray images that purport to show bullets lodged in the head and neck of children.
Those X-rays appear to be–according to doctors and ballistics experts–totally fake. And even I, a layman, can call bulls**t on them due to obvious problems that a 10-year-old can spot.
Look at the linked photos in the above tweet, and you will immediately notice a few things: there are no entry or exit wounds, despite the claim that a military rifle supposedly shot these children with a bullet designed to penetrate armor. The bullets show no deformation and appear to have been placed under the body.
I could be wrong, but lots of people in the law enforcement, military, and forensics fields have pointed these facts out. People have also done experiments using the same weapon and bullets on models, and there is no way that any of these children would have survived as claimed or that images of the wounds would appear that way on any type of medical images.
The article goes on to show tweets from one expert after another completely debunking this BS article about a BS series of events in Gaza as a hoax…
…after which Mr. Strom says this:
Years ago, I might have taken (the Times’ claim of fully vetting the article) at face value. These days, you can feel confident that the Times will stick to a Narrative no matter the evidence. They received a Pulitzer for the coverage of the Russia Russia Russia scandal, relying on the Steele Dossier for much of their reporting. They have never apologized for spreading lies.
The New York Times, sad to say, is no longer a great newspaper. In fact, if the definition of a newspaper is a paper that (other than its editorial/opinion section) provides neutral information without an agenda, I’m not sure The Times is one at all.
So don’t expect the necessary retraction and apology. As David Strom points out, The Times, in its current state of arrogant non-accountability, doesn’t offer them.
