No, it doesn’t. A whole bunch of journalists with cameras were killed in this attack. Even if we take the Israeli army’s claim at face value and assume they really were targeting a Hamas camera, and also ignore whether or not that makes reasonable grounds for bombing a hospital, it only means that Reuters has a journalist in the same place just like several other news outlets did
deleted by creator
I’m confused by this article as the headline is no longer the same as that screenshot (that statement is at the end of the article) and overall it seems like a factual report which brings the Israeli account into question by simply presenting facts and quotes: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/reuters-ap-journalists-killed-gaza-strike-were-not-a-target-an-israeli-military-2025-08-26/
Reuters tends to initially run a full on pro-Israel propaganda headline at the moment of the event and then change it retroactively when the wind blows over.
Strangely I can’t find the article archived in the wayback machine
I see the initial headline is problematic, but I also believe it would have been factual if they’d just put quotation marks around “Hamas camera”, as it is an article reporting on the Israeli quote (at least initially). There are a bunch of other articles on this topic citing other sides and an obituary for the cameraman, so I’m still not convinced Reuters as a whole is compromised.
But, yeah, it’s super weird to completely re-write an article instead of just publishing a new one. And I also don’t know about their history with this type of thing, as you mentioned.
Reuters journalists are literally quitting because the paper is so extremely biased pro-Israel
https://lemmy.ml/post/35237236
Multiple Reuters employees accuse their employer of being heavily biased in favor of Israel https://www.declassifieduk.org/reuters-journalists-accuse-newswire-of-pro-israel-bias/
And lastly Reuters claimed to have seen footage of rapes on October 7, which the UN has confirmed does not exist
Interesting links and context. They have previously been accused of bias for not using the word “terrorist”, so I’m surprised they have even used the word “genocide” at all frankly.
It’s also interesting to read in their wiki controversies section that they have been accused of bias against Israel previously.
I’m on the fence. I’m of the belief that true journalism should be simple reporting on facts, which is what I see. Refusing to condemn a side, or to condemn actions is an odd thing to call bias. Surely declaring anything like that, however righteous it may be, is bias itself.
Another major lie spread by Reuters for which Reuters is being sued is when they bought a video from a Dutch journalist showing Maccabi supporters beating up a Dutch person. Reuters put in the subtitle that it was Dutch people beating up a Maccabi supporter to spread the “pogrom” narrative.
Reuters was contacted and made aware of this fact but refused to change their knowingly false headline because they had a Zionist narrative which they were ordered to spread. Reuters then once again retroactively “corrected” themselves very long time after the damage was done.
This stuff has happened so many times already. It is not an accident. Reuters does this on purpose. It usually tells the truth, but when the boss calls with a false narrative they will directly abandon all journalistic integrity and spread that propaganda.
They didn’t bother condemning the death of it’s own journalist it’s shameful. Those media should stop mentionning isrseli stupid claims
what’s confusing? they run with what the boss at the IOF says then they publish with no integrity. A few hours later the bosses are off to the next thing and the internet has caught up so they “correct” the headlines.
To copy my comment from !ManufacturingConsent@lemmy.ml (since you unhelpfully didn’t crosspost it)
The headline could be understood to mean that there was a ‘hamas camera’ at the place where, separately, other journalists, including Reuters, also had cameras. It doesn’t make it ok, of course, but it would mean that Reuters isn’t calling its own journalist a ‘Hamas camera’
Why reuters not condemning it’s journalist killing it’s journalist?
No. Israel confirmed that they targeted the Reuters camera which was livestreaming. They went as far as claiming that KHAMAASSS disguised it with a cloth (there was a white cloth over the camera to prevent it from overheating in the sun). And a female journalist wearing a white headscarf. There was no other camera nearby. Also crossposting other people’s comments is not a thing.
Also bombing a hospital with journalists because you saw a camera has to be the absolute dumbest excuse possible and Reuters doesn’t even mention that even in the off-chance that it was true it would be a massive violation of international law.
Crossposting comments is not a thing, but crossposting posts is, and you didn’t do that. I understand and apologise for the confusion, though.
the headline says “initial inquiry says…”
so they’re not calling themselves hamas because israel wants them to, they’re say “isreal killed our cameraman man and said it was hamas”.why does everyone respond to titles without reading the article? that should be an incredibly shameful thing to do….
Journalism does not mean putting vague propaganda in the headline.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Well, if Reuters say so, it must be true.
