Israel-Hamas war: Answering readers’ questions

In the wake of Hamas' Oct 7 surprise attack on Israel, misinformation has spread rapidly online.

During a major news event, many social media users share misleading or baseless claims either out of confusion or in an effort to shape public perception.

Reuters editors took some of those readers' questions about the war received on Reddit and had two of our reporters answer.

What level of misinformation is being released on both sides?

* The kind of misinformation we’ve seen includes:

* Miscaptioned photos and videos from other conflicts

* False subtitles added to videos of world leaders weighing in

* Deep fakes of celebrities or politicians commenting on the conflict

* False claims that injuries are faked or staged.

* False or miscaptioned footage of reactions to the war in other countries, like this example or this one .

Christina Anagnostopoulos, U.S. Fact-Checking Editor

This is a war between two sides, both very skilled at presenting their own version. So it's an information war as well as a ‘real’ one. As a person with no affiliation to either side but some knowledge of the historical background, I'm at a loss as to what sources I should follow to get a balanced objective view. Any ideas?

Great question. To start with basic principles, if someone cites a historical source or document to back up their case, have some resources on hand to verify that the document says what they say it says.

Yale Law School's Avalon Project is a collection of legal and historical documents, accurately translated. In the 20th century documents, you will find the exact wording of the Balfour Declaration, the laws of war, the 1993 Declaration of Principles, Hamas's founding covenant in 1988, and many more. The exact wording shorn of paraphrase and selective citation can be very useful. It won't tell you what to think, but it will help if you feel you are being spun – by anyone – as to what the sides agreed on or who is breaching this or that convention. Moving beyond source material, it may be worth separating the two elements you mention: “balanced” and "objective.” You may find it better to read differing accounts from different sources and find a balance of probabilities by triangulating those sources, rather than go on a search for one oracle with perfect objectivity.

This is not to say everyone has an agenda, but nobody can have the full picture. You cannot be on the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing into Gaza and at the same time be up to the minute on developments in the Upper Galilee in Israel. Obviously, I would recommend an organization – such as Reuters – that has contributors from both or all communities involved in a conflict, rather than just one side.

Be suspicious of publications or social media feeds that predominantly feature opinion commentators, especially if all the commentators are following roughly the same talking points. If an organization can't embrace diversity of opinion and perspective, it may be one to calibrate carefully. When picking your dozen or so go-to sources, find a mixture of individual long-form writers/broadcasters with proven track records across a wide range of stories.

They may well be focusing on only one aspect or one perspective on a story, but will give you a deep insight. And to avoid going down only one or two rabbit holes, mix that up with coverage from broad-based organizations with a lot of people on the ground, providing input from many different backgrounds. Check the dateline of the person or team that is producing an account. Are they actually there? Are they there right now? Be skeptical of any account that overuses words and phrases such as "in such cases what often happens is" or “habitually” or “'in such cases” or “have been known to.” That often indicates someone is generalizing from past experience, not providing first-hand reporting on this occasion, even if they may have done so in the past.

Stephen Farrell, former Jerusalem Bureau Chief

How can we, as people thousands of miles away, differentiate between propaganda and fact?

The best thing you can do to avoid falling for falsehoods during a conflict is to be skeptical about what you see online. Do not take everything you see on social media at face value.

Look for the source of the video. Could it be from another country, conflict, or date? Look into the context of the video. Could it be deceptively cropped, or presented in a misleading way without other information that would paint a fuller picture? Could the video be generated by AI or edited?

Some technical tips for media verification include reverse-searching images, finding the original source, and corroborating reports of visuals for any one claim.

Try to get your information and visuals from places that have a sturdy verification process. Reuters has teams dedicated to sifting through and verifying user-generated content and debunking misinformation shared on social media.

Christina Anagnostopoulos, U.S. Fact-Checking Editor

Reuters is famous for value-neutral, fact-based reports. How difficult is it to navigate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a balanced way, given how entrenched and polarized so many people's views are?

The principles of balanced reporting are the same everywhere: There are other subjects that also generate an influx of emails and commentary when you write about them. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was very polarizing, for instance. The best way to report is to be at the scene and deliver first-hand text and visual reporting. That way you can avoid the less satisfactory – but sometimes unavoidable – “he said, she said” form of reporting, which presents what both sides say about an event because there is no way of independently corroborating it.

Check your sources. Have multiple sources when you can. Be open that you don't have multiple sources when you don't. Rely on reputable translators as poor translations are one sure way to make mistakes. Avoid judgmental language. Interview lots of people so you aren't being misled by just one or two. Think about what you know vs what you don't know. Separate them into two columns, and double- or triple-check that you haven't assumed something that accidentally places a “don't know” into the “know” column. Correct factual errors quickly if you make them, and be open that you did it. That increases trust. But that's not the same as giving in to pressure to sway language or coverage one way or another by people or groups simply advocating for one side rather than identifying mistakes.

Stephen Farrell, former Jerusalem bureau chief

How do you get information (footage/interviews) out of Gaza with the blockade of electricity and resources? Is your access restricted by Israel at all, like protection from the IDF?

Obviously, Reuters cannot discuss its security arrangements in a dangerous conflict zone. But as an international news agency, it has journalists who live and work in Gaza and were there before Israel's ground invasion and it has journalists who work in Israel. Hostilities are not unusual in the Israeli-Palestinian coverage, so preparations are made for many different eventualities.

Stephen Farrell, former Jerusalem bureau chief

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.