As i24 TV became a key source for many media outlets, politicians, and world leaders when reporting on the beheading of children by Hamas, it’s important to examine the live broadcast from the station. The word-for-word transcript between the i24 journalist and the news anchor states:

“Reporter: …no one could expect that it would be like this, the horror that I am hearing from these soldiers. As I mentioned earlier, about 40 babies at least were taken out on gurneys. Still, right now, they are going house to house, still evacuating dead bodies, killing Israeli citizens who were killed inside their homes.

News Anchor: Nicole, I have to cut in such a shocking, jarring statement there. Just for our views, those who are new to our broadcast, who very likely weren’t with us during the last hour, understand that you have come in there to find this small community littered with the dead and slaughtered bodies of Israeli civilians primarily and you are saying 40 babies, dead babies.

Reporter: That is what one of the commanders told me. And you continue to see just cribs overturned, strollers left behind, all of these doors wide open, as he said. We do not know the exact number of casualties because they are still collecting dead bodies, still going door to door.”

As it becomes clear from the conversation between the reporter and the news anchor, the original source of information about Hamas beheading Israeli children is “a commander” from the Israeli army.

As the conversation shows, the i24 journalist does not disclose the commander’s exact identity. The only information viewers learn from the video is that the commander is part of the Israeli army. Initially, the reporter states, ‘At least 40 babies were taken out on gurneys.’ The news anchor then interprets this as 40 babies being killed in the kibbutz. When questioned further by the anchor, the reporter responds, ‘That is what one of the commanders told me.’ 

This exchange shows that neither the journalist nor the anchor has verified the information about the 40 infants being killed. Additionally, relying on information from the Israeli military commander at the scene carries the risk of bias or misjudgment in assessing the extent of the tragedy in the settlement.

Both the journalist and the original source of information (the commander) are from Israel, a nation that has just endured a devastating attack by a militant group. Given this context, it is understandable that their perspectives on the ongoing situation may be influenced by bias. 

National or ethnic identity often shapes how individuals perceive certain events, particularly in such a volatile context. This does not mean the journalist is necessarily unprofessional or intentionally distorting the actual sequence of events. However, when critically examining information sources, it’s crucial to consider how factors such as national identity, religious affiliation, political or ideological beliefs, or professional role can influence how information is perceived and communicated.

As we watch the live broadcast, it becomes clear that regarding the alleged killing of minors, the reporter is relying solely on information verbally provided by a single, highly biased source. She has not personally witnessed any evidence of 40 children being killed by Hamas. For example, she has not seen any bodies, received confirmation from Israeli officials, or interviewed any eyewitnesses.

Given that the October 7 attack occurred just a few days before the media report, it’s expected that emotions and traumatic experiences will be at their peak. The use of graphic imagery from the scene of the violence adds an extra emotional layer to how the reported information is perceived.

The timing and location of the report relate to the principle of Duality in digital source criticism, which asserts that metadata about the source material offers crucial insights for evaluating the quality of the information being reported.

Another aspect of the Duality principle pertains to the language use and modes of discourse, which can often signal whether additional precautions are necessary to assess information quality. 

For instance, in the case of the i24 TV report, the language used by both the reporter and the news anchor suggests a departure from neutral, fact-based reporting. They frequently employ emotionally charged words and phrases such as “horror,” ” “shocking,” “jarring,” and “littered with the dead and slaughtered bodies.” This choice of language indicates a shift towards a more emotionally driven narrative.

Every communication format and genre of news reporting has its own limitations and caveats. For example, investigative reporting enables journalists to delve deeply into stories, consult multiple sources, and thoroughly evaluate facts and arguments to support specific claims. This happens on the expanse of stories being reported delayed in time. In contrast, formats that constrain the journalist by time excel in delivering information quickly, but the depth and thoroughness of the reported facts may be compromised due to these time constraints. 

In the case of the i24 report, there is clear value in providing a timely, first-hand account of the ongoing situation, which helps fulfill the public’s need to stay informed. However, as previously discussed, this approach also creates a scenario where the journalist, intentionally or unintentionally, lacks confirmed information, leading to the use of emotionally charged and unsubstantiated claims.