Is Reuters carpet bombing its vaunted Trust Principles promising news consumers “integrity, independence and freedom from bias”?
Indeed, in recent coverage of Israel’s war against both Hamas and Hezbollah, Reuters journalists launched multiple strikes against the media outlet’s stated commitment to “unbiased and reliable news.”
For example, in their Nov. 28 article, Reuters’ Laila Basam, Tom Perry and Maya Gebeily falsely referenced Israel’s “carpet bombing of Beirut’s southern suburbs” (“Still counting its dead, Hezbollah faces long road to recover from war“).
Carpet bombing refers to a campaign which “seeks to destroy every part of a wide area.” If Israel had carpet-bombed Beirut’s southern suburbs, the entire area would be destroyed and fatalities would have reached in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.
But as previous Reuters coverage indicates, Israeli attacks on Beirut’s southern suburbs were highly focused, targeting specific buildings, and not the entire area. Reuters reported Oct. 1, for instance, that a single high-rise building was hit in one such attack:
Israel carried out two attacks on Beirut on Tuesday afternoon, striking the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital and the city’s southern entrance, two security sources said.
A high-rise building was hit in the city’s Jnah area, the sources said.
The Israeli military said it was targeting the Lebanese capital and had carried out a “precise strike.”
Likewise, on Nov. 23, Reuters reported on Israeli attacks against Hezbollah targets, as opposed to total annihilation of the suburbs: “The Israeli air force also struck Hezbollah targets in the southern suburbs of Beirut, the group’s stronghold, the Israeli military said.”
Similarly, Reuters reporting Nov. 13 referred to Israel warning civilians to evacuate and then striking specific Hezbollah targets in the area, a focused attack not even remotely resembling the flattening of the entire area:
The Israeli military pounded Beirut’s southern suburbs with airstrikes on Tuesday, mounting one of its heaviest daytime attacks yet on the Hezbollah-controlled area, and struck the middle of the country where more than 20 people were killed.
Smoke billowed over Beirut as around a dozen strikes hit the southern suburbs starting in midmorning. After posting warnings to civilians on social media, the Israeli military said it struck Hezbollah targets in Beirut’s Dahiyeh area and later said it dismantled most of the group’s weapons and missile facilities.
If Israel had carpet-bombed the southern suburbs of Beirut, there would be nothing left there aside from rubble.
But Reuters’ own photographic coverage demonstrates that this is clearly not the case. The Nov. 24 Reuters image at left shows that the vast majority of buildings are completely intact.
Five hours of CGTN Europe Nov. 26 footage of the view overlooking Beirut’s southern suburbs before the ceasefire went into effect also shows attacks against specific buildings, and not wholesale destruction of the entire residential area.
While CAMERA informed Reuters editors about the egregiously fallacious claim two days ago, the media outlet has yet to correct. With one billion global news consumers exposed to Reuters daily, the media outlet’s civilian casualties — those on the receiving end of its false “carpet bombing” libel — are widespread.
Reuters also subjects its readers to unfounded mayham and confusion, obscuring the actual outlines of the Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire agreement. The ceasefire agreement is perfectly clear that Hezbollah is to be disarmed and is forbidden to deploy south of the Litani River. It also states explicitly that Israel has up to 60 days to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. Nevertheless, in today’s article, “With Israeli tanks on the ground, Lebanese unable to bury dead,” Hamuda Hassan and Ahmed Fahmy concealed these keys points of the deal.
Instead, in their abbreviated characterization of the ceasefire, they say only that the agreement “stipulated an end to fighting so residents on both sides of the border could return home.” Further, in describing the alleged hardships Lebanese say they face upon return to their villages in the south, the reporters falsely imply that Israel’s current presence in southern Lebanon is a violation of the deal:
The ordeal highlights the bitterness and confusion for residents of southern Lebanon who have been unable to return home because Israeli troops are still present on Lebanese territory.
Israel’s military has issued orders to residents of 60 southern towns not to return home, saying they are prohibited from accessing their hometowns until further notice.
The U.S.-brokered ceasefire deal grants both Lebanon and Israel the right to self-defence, but does not include provisions on a buffer zone or restrictions for residents.
Given that Israel’s military presence in southern Lebanon is permitted for nearly two more months, the smoke and mirrors reference to a lack of provisions on buffer zone and restrictions falsely implies that Israel is in violation of the agreement. That fabrication is the underlying narrative of the entire article.
Reuters’ sustained assault on unbiased and reliable news extends southwards from Lebanon to the Gaza Strip. In his article today, Nidal al-Mughrabi reports dubious and notoriously unreliable Hamas-supplied fatality statistics as fact, without any attribution: “Israel’s military campaign has killed more than 44,400 Palestinians, injured many others, and reduced much of the enclave to rubble” (“Israel kills 14 people in northern Gaza, orders evacuation in south“).
When it comes to Israel’s verified Oct. 7 victims, in contrast, al-Mughrabi fastidiously attributes the information, as if the data cannot be independently confirmed:
Israel launched its campaign in the densely populated Palestinian enclave after Hamas-led fighters attacked Israeli communities on Oct. 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and capturing more than 250 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.
Reuters took another shot at its unbiased news promise when it dropped key information from its Nov. 30 headline: “Israel says it killed Oct. 7 attack suspect who worked for US-based charity.”
By the next day, the updated version of the same story, carrying the same url as the original article, contained less — not more — information, stating: “Israeli airstrikes on Gaza killed two aid workers.” How does the headline’s omission of the aid workers’ alleged participation in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks against Israel serve Reuters’ Trust Principles?
In contrast, the Associated Press’ headline clearly notes Israel’s information that the targeted Gazan participated in the Oct. 7 massacre: “Israeli strike in Gaza kills World Central Kitchen workers. Israel says 1 was an Oct. 7 attacker.”
News providers face a challenge, wrote chairman of Thomson Reuters Founders Share Company Kim Williams in 2018. “[T]hey must earn the confidence of their clients through convincing efforts to strengthen credibility.” A convincing initial effort towards strengthening credibility would be to forthrightly correct the absurd carpet bombing libel.
As for recovery of trust, integrity and freedom from bias, cessation of scorched-earth journalistic skewing in favor of Hamas and Hezbollah is a good place to start.