ian page said, "first, we have the reluctance to reference hamas as terrorists.we had the unquestioning acceptance that israel had bombed the hospital. " derek brown emailed, "if the bbc reports that israel has bombed a hospital, killing hundreds of men, women and children, i would expect it to have checked the veracity of such a claim first." and simon barnard said, "your reporting of this explosion is an utter disgrace. how dare you take sides in this manner without fully investigating the evidence? " in a statement, bbc news accepted it had been wrong to speculate that it had been an israeli attack. "we accept that even in this fast moving situation, it was wrong to speculate in this way, although he did not at any point report that it was an israeli strike. this doesn't represent the entirety of bbc output. anyone watching, listening to or reading our coverage can see we have set out both sides competing claims about the explosion, clearly showing who is saying them and what do we do or don't know." now, we've had a lot of complaints this week that coverage o