It’s pretty easy to determine the one who shot that missile into Israel. It is not as clear who blew up the school in Iran, and the headline would be quite uncertain to state “either American or Israeli”.
Additionally, it is relatively easy for the NYT to verify the news in Israel, so it is not a “claim”, whereas they cannot easily verify the news in Iran.
NYT article was first recorded on wayback machine at 18.29 on Feb 28th.
AP article posted March 1st
Unclear what time Reuters video posted, nor if the title was changed at any point. They state it is a claim though, and that it cannot be verified - in my view, same level as NYT.
It is invalid to compare the NYT and AP articles, as the situation developed rapidly.
The NYT doesn’t have reporters on the ground everywhere, so they use wire services, Reuters, AP, others, who actually do, when something big happens out of their direct coverage network.
This is extremely common and has been the norm for reporting and journalism for decades, for print services that don’t have a televised reporting set up.
The point remains that it would be very easy to attribute blame in the headline, if they wanted to.
Because all these outlets know they exist in a world where 95% of people only read headlines.
The headline is supposed to be the hook.
A wishy washy, vague headline is an intentionally bad hook.
Reuters was confident enough in the reports that couldn’t be verified to lead with it.
The NYT on the other hand has basically been continuously shown to be basically just operating under a CIA editorial board 10-20 years after high level employees retire, since basically the 1970s.
Moreover, the NYT has a literally scholarly documented history of pro-Israeli bias:
It’s pretty easy to determine the one who shot that missile into Israel. It is not as clear who blew up the school in Iran, and the headline would be quite uncertain to state “either American or Israeli”.
Additionally, it is relatively easy for the NYT to verify the news in Israel, so it is not a “claim”, whereas they cannot easily verify the news in Iran.
Then the next line mentions uncertainty as to whether or not it was Israel or the US, but it was clearly one of them.
The NYT can verify that ‘dozens were killed’ there just as easily as in the other story.
I have no idea why you don’t think they have access to Reuters or the AP, who both verified that part quite quickly.
https://apnews.com/video/all-girls-school-in-iran-struck-by-us-israeli-strike-over-100-casualties-78cead1fc4ba4ac39d57e8a0f53b0bf2
https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW953528022026RP1/
Oh hey look, Reuters basically came up with the same headline that I did.
Except that they also attribute blame to Israel.
In summary, you’re completely wrong.
NYT article was first recorded on wayback machine at 18.29 on Feb 28th.
AP article posted March 1st
Unclear what time Reuters video posted, nor if the title was changed at any point. They state it is a claim though, and that it cannot be verified - in my view, same level as NYT.
It is invalid to compare the NYT and AP articles, as the situation developed rapidly.
No, you’re missing the point.
The NYT doesn’t have reporters on the ground everywhere, so they use wire services, Reuters, AP, others, who actually do, when something big happens out of their direct coverage network.
This is extremely common and has been the norm for reporting and journalism for decades, for print services that don’t have a televised reporting set up.
The point remains that it would be very easy to attribute blame in the headline, if they wanted to.
Because all these outlets know they exist in a world where 95% of people only read headlines.
The headline is supposed to be the hook.
A wishy washy, vague headline is an intentionally bad hook.
Reuters was confident enough in the reports that couldn’t be verified to lead with it.
The NYT on the other hand has basically been continuously shown to be basically just operating under a CIA editorial board 10-20 years after high level employees retire, since basically the 1970s.
Moreover, the NYT has a literally scholarly documented history of pro-Israeli bias:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/How-bias-shapes-the-news-Zelizer-Park/e21f0e7da584bb44f9d3097c9e3b2535867b0f77
Would it be quite uncertain?
Yes, it would be more uncertain. It is better to provide less information than wrong information.