Beware the propaganda lurking within the fog of war

In his 19th century treatise "On War," military strategist and historian Carl von Clausewitz offers this observation that followers of news about war in the 21st century do well to keep in mind:

"War is the realm of uncertainty; three quarters of the factors on which action in war is based are wrapped in a fog of greater or lesser uncertainty."

Clausewitz' statement was focused more on tactics in the field than on reporting about them, but his words apply equally well in both contexts. Indeed, considering the role propaganda plays in stirring passions for war, they hold particular import for people who want to be clear not just on how a war is being fought but also on why.

Case in point: As the Israel response to the Hamas attacks escalated this week, reports came Tuesday of an explosion that rocked a Gaza hospital. Officials in Gaza declared that an Israeli missile had struck the hospital, killing 500 people. Photographs of the destruction were circulated around the world, and news agencies, including the Daily Herald, were quick to report the development online and over broadcast air waves with variations on the headline, "Israeli missile strike kills hundreds at Gaza hospital."

At virtually the same time, disturbing pictures of injured Palestinian children began to stream across the wires. The agony of war was on full display and, for the moment, its source seemed to be Israeli indifference to casualties.

But within hours, a different version of the story emerged. Israeli authorities said their forces were not the source of the explosion and produced a variety of satellite images and military data to suggest that it actually was the result of a misfired Gazan missile. News agencies were quick to revise their reporting. Daily Herald editors urgently adjusted the headline and story online to indicate that it was not clear what caused the explosion, and they made sure the presentation in print on Wednesday showed the cause of the blast was disputed.

Even so, a message had already been sent.

Earlier, reports of the original Hamas attacks in Israel prominently featured claims of horrific atrocities, including a widely circulated report that 40 babies had been decapitated at a kibbutz. President Biden himself reinforced the supposed veracity of the grisly accusation by suggesting at a news conference that he had seen images verifying the beheadings.

Again within hours, the White House was walking back the president's statement, acknowledging that reports of the beheadings had not been confirmed. The Israeli government also would eventually state that it could not confirm those reports.

Again, much damage had already been done.

The claim of infant beheadings is still a prominent image in public discussions of the horrors of the attack as though it is universally accepted truth. As for the hospital explosion, a New York Times report Thursday still could not confirm the actual number of casualties nor verify the source of the blast.

These are just two prominent examples of the "fog of greater or lesser uncertainty" that partisans are quick to exploit in a time of high passion to attract support for their side. Social media is becoming replete with unverified, often deliberately falsified claims and images.

Numerous examples of Hamas atrocities in the original attack have indeed been verified. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza caused by Israel's response is undeniable. The events and nature of this or any war are indisputably ugly and may well get uglier. That does not, however, validate every horrific claim that emerges.

Responsible news media certainly have a duty to take care as we report the events of the war and to be sure to emphasize in headlines and stories the sources of information provided. Likewise, readers and viewers should be cautious not to let assumptions about either side in the conflict lend undue credence to the believability of reports they see, read and hear. Be especially wary of the phrase "could not be independently verified" when reports cite the source of a particular claim.

The so-called "fog of war" is a factor every general and tactician must deal with in fighting one. It can also be a misleading tool for manipulating the thoughts and emotions of people who want a truthful basis for why it is being fought.

• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is managing editor for opinion at the Daily Herald.