Assal RadMar 2
The difference is by design.
Show threaderibosotMar 2
@AssalRad Because the New York Times has had no presence in Iran since it had its press credentials revoked in 2019, it can therefore not independently confirm what the Iranian regime reports, including whose strike it was (American or Israeli). It would be unethical to report unconfirmed stories as fact. The article goes into detail about videos of the event, categorizing some as "reviewed by," some as "verified by" the NYT.
Show threadLightMar 3

@eribosot @AssalRad Ok, but does that justify naming Iran as the culprit if they don't have Iranian sources to confirm? If they only have Israeli or American sources they could be biased or lying.

Also, don't they have other means of verifying things than simply asking the authorities?

Show threaderibosot

@light @AssalRad

You're right, identifying the missiles as Iranian is an assumption.

Here is some circumstantial evidence: "The attack occurred after [...] Iran’s top national security official, wrote in a post on social media that Iran would hit Israel and the United States 'with a force that they have never experienced.'"

That said, it's not exactly a stretch to assume that the missile comes from the country they just bombed. In the other headline, the strike could be Israeli or American.

Mar 3 at 9:04amWeb