My formal journalism training began and ended with Robert Rothstein, the journalism teacher at George Washington High School, and a powerful teacher he was. For example, he would ask his students: What if someone came from Mars and you had a chance to interview him, what would you ask?
As you may imagine, all kinds of creative questions poured forth from us, the students.
We thought this was an ingenious way to train us in the skill of conducting an interview.
After all of the intriguing questions were put on the table, Mr. Rothstein said: “You all flunked. You missed the first and most important question: ‘What are your credentials? You say you are from Mars. Please substantiate this extraordinary claim.’”
Mr. Rothstein’s point was clear: Journalism is based on facts, not fancy. Whoever presents a claim to a journalist, whatever the claim may be, must substantiate it. Journalism is based on evidence. Fascinating, eye-catching, newspaper-selling stories from Mars are actually irrelevant, and should not be reported, unless it can be shown that they really are from Mars.
Which, of course, they aren’t.
Which reminds me of reporting in The New York Times and elsewhere of the casualty figures in Gaza since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Can these figures be substantiated?
It doesn’t look like the question is even being asked. A cutting example is a story in The New York Times, Sept. 26, under the headline, “Abbas Promises Hamas Will Not Govern Gaza After War.” The reporter’s byline is Farnaz Fassihi. There is no other name listed. I know that on its face that it seems absurd to say that Farnaz Fassihi is one person and not two, but as will become clear, I can only wonder after having read the story.
Toward the beginning of the story, Fassihi writes, “In speech after speech [at the UN General Assembly last September], world leaders have recognized Palestinian statehood, slammed Israel for a military campaign in Gaza that has killed 65,000 people and displaced more than a million, and called for an end to the suffering of Palestinians.”
Note the casualty figure: “65,000.”
Later on in the same article, Fassihi writes, “Gazan officials say more than 64,000 people have been killed in the enclave during Israel’s military operations, figures that do not distinguish between combatants and civilians.”
Note the casualty figure: “more than 64,000.”
Have we two authors here? No. Same article. Same author. Two different casualty figures. Not radically different, to be sure, but different.
Rothstein asked us to ask the Martian for his credentials. Has the NYT, AP and others asked the “Gazan officials” for their credentials, that is, for evidence for their casualty figures?
There is no indication that these officials’ claims have been scrutinized. If the same reporter in the same article can’t even get her own understanding of the casualty figures right, how carefully could she have questioned the figures supplied to her? Or did she even seek them? Did she just rely on what others reported? Is her reportage just hearsay?
Could be: just hearsay. For here we reach a problem even deeper than one reporter reporting two different casualty figures in the same article. That deeper problem is this:
Based on very widespread reportage, we the readers are supposed to believe that Gaza is in a shambles, that essential services are so undermined and disorganized that the Gaza population has little or no food, that a Gazan risks his life even to seek food from those who distribute it, that the Gazan population has been displaced multiple times, that international aid agencies cannot keep up with a humanitarian crisis, that water is hard to come by, that medical care is hard to come by, that telephone service and computer connections are iffy at best, that normal life has ended. We are supposed to believe all this, and also believe that the Gaza Health Ministry, which supplies the casualty figures, is perfectly intact, perfectly capable of keeping track of precisely how many Gazans have died since Oct. 7, 2023, perfectly capable of distinguishing between deaths in Gaza from the Israel’s military campaign and between deaths from natural causes. We are supposed to believe that the body counters in Gaza have intact offices, working internet, working phones, food, water, vehicles — everything needed to investigate a precise count of casualties.
All of Gaza is a shambles — there is no way to get around except on foot — except for the body counters. For them, all professional standards are 100%. That’s the assumption between a journalist’s reportage of casualty figures in Gaza supplied by “Gazan officials.”
Mr. Martian, where is the evidence for a perfectly normal Health Ministry? Where is the evidence for “65,000 deaths” or for “more than 64,000 deaths?”
Let us return to Farnaz Fassihi. Perhaps, when she reported “65,000” people killed she was just reporting what world leaders said “in speech after speech.” I read the speech of Macron, the prime minister of France, the leader of the pack in the recent recognize-Palestine campaign at the UN. In his speech, Macron mentioned no casualty figure at all! He was the leader of the leaders. He did refer to “hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians wracked by hunger, suffering, the fear of death, and grief over their loved ones.” That’s not a casualty figure. That’s not 65,000 people dead or any other precise number. When Fassihi wrote that world leaders who recognized Palestinian statehood “slammed Israel” for its military campaign in Gaza, she was accurate, but when she wrote that this the military campaign “has killed 65,000 people,” these were Fassihi’s words. Her figures. Her acceptance of figures provided by the Hamas Health Ministry — or by other reporters — figures that she herself couldn’t even keep straight in the same article, figures that miraculously lower from “65,000” to “more than 64,000 people.” Again, same writer, same article. Same gullibility. Same failure of high school journalism: Mr. Martian, “Where are your credentials? Please substantiate your extraordinary claim.”
© IJN 2025
