What’s the bottom line? All the key elements of the story that appeared in print on November 17, occupying most of the front-page above the fold, were either false, unsubstantiated or, at a bare minimum, rejected by statements by Israeli government officials who painted a very different picture than the one presented by the Post. The reporters appear to have taken on face-value claims and assertions made by the Palestinian mothers and the hospital administrators, without any independent verification. Their failure to seek comment from the relevant Israeli authorities violated the most fundamental rules of journalism. At the very least, the Post would then have had a “he-said/she-said” story, presenting two contradictory views of the same situation. Why the Post’s editors didn’t insist the reporters follow these rules may be the most inexplicable part of this tale. …

As I wrote in my original critique, at its core, this appears to be a good news story about well-meaning people taking care of premature babies across battle lines that, for some unknown reason, the Washington Post turned into an unsourced, unnamed, unverified attack on Israel.

[“For some reason”? Oh, we all KNOW the reason. And the failure by Post editors to “follow these rules” isn’t inexplicable at all when you grasp that the US media suffers from the same institutional capture by the progressive Left as Academia, and that the two are closely related. — Ed]