(WatchDogReport.org) – According to RedState, several purported “photojournalists” were found embedded with Hamas during the lethal attack on Israel on October 7th. This revelation drew attention to potential foreknowledge and involvement in the atrocities committed. In a particular instance, a journalist was spotted on video carrying a grenade and traversing the border with Hamas militants.
However, the primary cause for the scandal was that these journalists were contracted by leading American news platforms such as CNN, the AP, Reuters, and The New York Times. Indeed, the initial images of the attacks were obtained from these media houses, who had compensated these alleged journalists for their photographs.
While CNN and the AP promptly severed ties and condemned the revelation, The New York Times took a surprising stance. The newspaper defended the implicated journalist and went as far as to claim that they were the victims.
The New York Times has rejected allegations of any foreknowledge of the Hamas attacks or involvement during the attacks. The newspaper considers such claims to be reckless, as they put their journalists in Israel and Gaza at risk. The Times insists they have covered the October 7th attacks and the conflict impartially and with a deep understanding of the situation’s complexity.
However, considering that the Times was one of the leading media outlets that disseminated the falsified story of Israel bombing the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, a report sourced from Hamas, it’s questionable whether they have covered the war with fairness and impartiality. The Times has often been accused of sympathizing with, if not outright defending, the wrong side.
Much of the public is incensed that the Times would paint these journalists as victims. The real victims are the people who lost their lives on October 7th.
The Times, in turn, has stepped up to shield these valiant freelance photojournalists who cover conflict zones. Their jobs frequently necessitate them to venture into hazardous circumstances. The reason? To offer firsthand narratives and chronicle significant news events to the media readers and viewers.
However, if photojournalists were indeed embedded with Hamas on October 7th and censored their coverage based on what the terrorist group would permit, then they could be seen as complicit. Hamas is known for its ruthless and indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
The journalists do not appear to have been merely bystanders who accidentally found themselves in a conflict zone; they traveled with Hamas across Gaza, breached the Israeli border, and remained with them as civilians were targeted. It seems unlikely that they were unaware of the impending attack. Hence, The Times’ defense of these individuals’ actions is troubling.
Copyright 2023, WatchDogReport.org
