A FlyDubai aircraft carrying Israeli passengers and bound for Tel Aviv was diverted after a violent incident in the cockpit between the pilot and co-pilot, Israeli officials said. The New York Times’ initial description of the event: an “altercation.”
The Times posted on social media that “a plane flying from Dubai to Israel was diverted after an altercation between the pilot and co-pilot, Israeli officials said.” Community Notes on the platform pushed back almost immediately, and users piled on, pointing out that the word “altercation” ordinarily means a loud argument, not a stabbing and an apparent attempted hijacking.
Critics online mocked the framing directly. One widely shared response noted: “Pro tip: ‘altercation’ means ‘a loud argument or disagreement.’ It does not apply to stabbings and attempted hijackings.”
The Times’ follow-up reporting on the incident said terrorism was only one possible motive being considered, a framing that drew further ridicule. Media critic Stephen L. Miller wrote that “the main goal from the New York Times with any major news story is to disinform their audience.”
The PR Team Wades In
Rather than let the criticism pass, the Times’ PR account responded directly, posting: “Our headlines and live coverage contain all the facts we’re able to confirm as we confirm them. Unlike activists and partisans, we don’t publish speculation or unverified information.” A link to ongoing coverage was included.
That statement was quickly held up against the paper’s own record. Critics pointed to the Times’ past reporting on the Al Ahli hospital explosion in Gaza, dated October 17, 2023, which relied on claims from a terrorist organization that were later disputed. Others cited the paper’s coverage of unverified claims, sourced from Hamas, that Israeli forces were training dogs to attack Palestinian prisoners.
Readers drew the same conclusion CNN faced after its cautious coverage of the July 2024 assassination attempt on then-candidate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, and that USA Today faced for a headline describing that shooting as “loud noises” that “startles former president, crowd.” The pattern, critics say, is a media class more comfortable hedging on violence than naming it plainly when the target or context doesn’t fit a preferred narrative.
