And if the article had been presented like your post, I think we'd all think that's great!
State the known facts, then describe the information provided by extremely biased and known-dishonest interested parties, with the context of their personal biases.
But front-loading it with reverse-passive voice gives credulence to parties who did not deserve it. IDF officials are extremely dishonest, but Palestinian government ones are not better.
The NYT headline was "Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinian Officials Say." which puts the dubious source after the claims. That could've been phrased "Explosion Kills Hundreds in Gaza Hospital, Palestinian Officials blame Israeli Strike". Slightly longer but would put the facts separate from the claims.
Meanwhile, the Politico headline (which came out slightly later after the Israeli statement had been released):
"Blast kills hundreds at Gaza hospital; Hamas and Israel trade blame"
State the known facts, then describe the information provided by extremely biased and known-dishonest interested parties, with the context of their personal biases.
But front-loading it with reverse-passive voice gives credulence to parties who did not deserve it. IDF officials are extremely dishonest, but Palestinian government ones are not better.
The NYT headline was "Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinian Officials Say." which puts the dubious source after the claims. That could've been phrased "Explosion Kills Hundreds in Gaza Hospital, Palestinian Officials blame Israeli Strike". Slightly longer but would put the facts separate from the claims.
Meanwhile, the Politico headline (which came out slightly later after the Israeli statement had been released):
"Blast kills hundreds at Gaza hospital; Hamas and Israel trade blame"