[woodruffw]

What is your actual counterposition here? That news outfits shouldn’t publish anything until it’s incontrovertible? This is not a practical position to hold; the NPR’s qualification seems reasonable to me in light of the situation.

[hersko]

They shouldn't post anything until they have some sort of third party confirmation, even a simple photo would have shown that the hospital was not even touched. It would have been obvious that there were no 500 civilian casualties etc...

[vxNsr]

> What is your actual counterposition here?

That yelling fire in a theater is dangerous and that is quite literally what the NYT and NPR did.

The falsehoods they repeated caused immediate panic and rioting in many Muslim communities and countries, they’ve burned down synagogues and Israeli embassies over a false story.

[woodruffw]

“Burns down Synagogues” and “reads NPR” are probably largely disjoint sets of people.

I’m Jewish, and I’m exceedingly sensitive to the volatility of the situation. My relatives’ lives depend on it. I do not find NPR’s language particularly objectionable.

[readthenotes1]

Perhaps they listen to the US congressional representative who repeated the same untruths as NPR and AP and the New York Times?