Ah, the free press

The current headline is "Israeli strike kills nearly 100 in Gaza school refuge, officials say".
- Thanks for the update and fact check!
- Yeah, OP loves tinfoil.
  
  The last edit on the Reuters article is August 11.
  You can see the timestamps of the Reuters titles in OP's screenshots.

It’s almost like if you’re going to report on a live, complex event in the digital age, you have to update with new information and that might change your original message.
This take is as stupid as saying someone Flipflops when they just change their opinion after learning new information
- Did israel bomb (another) school? YES / NO, youre so right, its just complex
  Thats been removed from the headline, isnt that weird?
  
  Turns out Hamas uses human Shields, shocking!
- they literally flipped it and removed information from the headline. theres a limit to my gullibility.
  
  Without knowing where the original or updated information came from and how it was vetted I can't really form a belief or opinion. I would hope you have looked into those things though and aren't just basing your take on having read the headlines on an image otherwise that limit to your gullibility that you were talking about is quite high.
- These are the dipshits that downvote the MBFC bot because MBFC occasionally makes a wee mistake, despite all the good ratings they have
  Armchair journalists lol

I do wonder if this is due to automated A/B testing, similar to how you can upload multiple thumbnails on YouTube, and the algorithm will automatically choose the one that provides the most traction.
If the sole purpose is to generate as many clicks as possible, that kinda tracks.
- With normal news websites, A/B testing could be a thing. We had a rudimentary implementation of that back in 2011 already. But this is Reuters, a news agency. They are B2B and don't care about clicks, their business model is selling first hand reporting to other media outlets (e.g. CNN, USA Today etc). As stories develop, so does the title. Especially when ongoing conflicts are concerned.
- It clearly states it was edited
- Wait what the fuck that's a thing?? Is that why certain videos seem to change their name weeks later?
  
  That's done manually on youtube but website like these likely have that feature built in
  
  Yes, they have automated a/b testing for thumbnails and titles IIRC.

CSI had ENHANCE, media have ADJUST

It's not always the case, but I've found that some outlets like to write their first article title completely false so that a more alarming headline is distributed that way to subscriber notifications and RSS, then they update it on their own a few hours later after the false headline has already been shared and posted across the web so they can plead an honest mistake if necessary.
I appreciate that The Guardian is mentioned here because they're one of the worst offenders I've noticed.

All of the corporate owned media is fucked, including centralized social media.
And fuck Reuters too.
- So what would be a reliable news source?
  
  Uncle Jimbo!
  
  the sad thing here is that we probably don't have one big source we can point to. all we can do is judge what we have according to their circumstances and adjusting our worldview accordingly.
  e.g. media owned by a rich person probably cant be trusted not to push their interests, and you have to take it into account.
  
  Evaluating news sources isn't simply ignoring every media that looks biased and looking for the one that's not (which arguably doesn't exist). It's knowing what this bias is for a few sources and comparing their reporting for the same event in order to make your own opinion.
  
  Actual newspapers that had time to fact-check their stories before printing and don't have to participate in the "first out the door wins the attention contest"-game
  
  Official filings and statements.
  Everybody wants tomorrows news yesterday,and they want it SO bad theyre willing to believe false narratives and outright lies based on "sources close to the matter".
  Patience is the best news source.

- We might know more of the truth if Israel didn't systematically target journalists.
  
  Unlike hamas?
- https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/more-than-100-palestinians-killed-israeli-strike-targeted-school-gaza-2024-08-10/
  This is the article in question, as you can see from the url structure it has the original headline. The article has been continually updated since press yesterday (including three hours ago) and appears to have changed a few times according to others / records at archive.org.
  
  I didn't question the edits themselves, that happens all the time in media. But the first statements seem to been made by word released from hamas, and that's "facts" and numbers you cannot trust inherently by the fact that they're a terrorist organization. What I'm questioning is the entire meme format that seems to just been here to push an anti Israel agenda. I don't mind shitting on Israel for shit they do, but that does not mean I'm going to just eat up hamas propaganda. Memes like this are a huge part in foreign propaganda to discredit western news sources.
- Because we hate Israel? No. Because it's precisely the kind of thing Israel does all the time? Yeah, pretty much. If Hamas tells your fire is hot, are you not gonna believe them?
  
  Nice logical fallacy. Are you saying if Israel claims something hamas does all the time it is automatically true as well?
- Ah yes Reuters. Definitely a terrorist media outlet for sure.
  
  All of the headlines shown come from the same site so that argument doesn't really hold water