The Times of Israel builds this liveblog entry around the Israeli military's own account of a strike on Gaza City's Islamic University, hedging the three deaths as "reported" and "reportedly" while printing the army's claim plainly and in full. It gives the army's version of a Hamas target the last word with nothing set against it, and never tells its reader that the dead were Palestinians, that Gaza's education ministry condemned the strike, or that the army told other reporters the incident was under review.
7.3
Serious
out of 10
What we found
Gives a contested claim the last word
Serious
“It is unclear if the target of the strike is among the dead”
What the words do
Closes the item on the army's premise that there was a legitimate target, leaving the three dead as an open question about that target.
What a reader comes away believing
That the people killed may well have been the wanted man, and that nothing more is known about them.
What is actually the case
Other coverage of the same strike reports that staff and a local hospital said three people were killed and that their bodies were mourned at a funeral at Al Shifa Hospital; the article offers no basis for the army's claim about a Hamas operative.
The army said it struck a Hamas operative and diverted the munition. Gaza's education ministry condemned the strike, and hospital and university staff said three people were killed.
Doubts one side's dead and not the other's
Serious
“The strike reportedly hit the Islamic University”
What the words do
Puts "reportedly" on the strike and the deaths, while the army's account in the next sentences is given plainly and in direct quotation.
What a reader comes away believing
That the killing of three people is a loose report, while the military's version is the firmer part of the story.
What is actually the case
University staff and a local hospital said three people were killed at the Islamic University, and the Israeli army did not deny the strike but said it was under review.
University staff and a local hospital said the strike on the Islamic University killed three people.
Headline goes beyond the article
Minor
“was diverted to avoid harm”
What the words do
The headline upgrades the army's wording, turning "minimize harm" into "avoid harm", over a report that three people were killed.
What a reader comes away believing
That the strike was steered away and nobody was hurt, so the three deaths cannot have come from it.
What is actually the case
The quote the article itself prints says only that the munition was diverted "to minimize harm", and other coverage of the same strike reports three people killed at the Islamic University and buried at Al Shifa Hospital.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“the munition was diverted to minimize harm to them”
Reduces the dead to a bare count, with no names, no ages and no word about who they were, while the army's explanation is quoted in full.
What a reader comes away believing
That nothing is known about the people killed beyond their number.
What is actually the case
Coverage of the same strike reports that the three were Palestinians whose bodies were mourned at a funeral at Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza City; the article never uses the word Palestinian at all.
The article does not say that the Israeli army told other reporters the same strike was "currently under review". Without that, a reader believes the army has already established what happened and that the diversion account is settled.
The article leaves out that Gaza's education ministry condemned the strike on the university and the silence over attacks on students and universities. Without it a reader believes nobody contested the army's account of this strike.
The article does not mention that five other people were reported killed in Gaza the same day, during a truce that has not stopped the killing. Without it a reader takes this as an isolated incident.