Let me guess: al-Reuters and other "journalists" didn't think they had a real scoop, they knew it was pure jihadist propaganda. Even thought they tried to put out some feeble versions at first, they did not dare pursue it aggressively because they knew that going down that road would lead to their own exposure as jihad-propagandists.......
"Let me guess: al-Reuters and other "journalists" didn't think they had a real scoop, they knew it was pure jihadist propaganda. Even thought they tried to put out some feeble versions at first, they did not dare pursue it aggressively because they knew that going down that road would lead to their own exposure as jihad-propagandists..."
That sums it up nicely.
And remember, even the relatives of the victims only seemed to get up in arms when they weren't satisfied with the compensation the US paid for "collateral damage."
Their lawyer (and covenient witness) wanted amounts like what the Americans got from the Lockerbie shoot-down. (His words.)
When they didn't get it, it looks like they decided they would try another approach, and went to Time Magazine with claims of a massacre.