Following 10 days of outrage due to the op-ed accusing Israel of systemic rape of Palestinians, The New York Times finally issued a statement titled “Mr. Kristof and Kathleen Kingsbury, the head of Times Opinion, respond to some of the most common and pressing questions”, but it was a pathetic attempt to minimize subscription cancellations and dodge well-deserved legal action. Here is why.
The alleged answers failed to address the most pressing questions about the Times’ poor journalism ethics. Even if all the testimonies in the piece were true, including the far-fetched story about dogs being trained to rape humans, the real question is if the Times’ conduct was professional and lacking malice. You can judge for yourselves, on five basic accounts.
1. Disclosure
Proper disclosure and transparency about how the news is gathered is basic journalism ethics. The Times miserably failed to do this with its formal sources, whose identities do not need to be kept confidential. The original op-ed mentioned only two reports in its opening paragraphs: by the UNHRC and by the Euro-Med NGO. Both are extremely anti-Israeli and Nicholas Kristof misrepresented both.
The UNHRC, a council full of questionable country members whose credibility is frequently criticized, was merely presented as “a United Nations report.” Euro-Med was far worse – it was presented as “a Geneva-based advocacy group often critical of Israel,” which is simply untrue.
Euro-Med and its founder are not simply “critical” – they have been found to be affiliated with Hamas. This is not an incidental slip, it’s called concealing information.
Context is a fundamental principle of journalism, and concealing this critical and relevant context is exactly how sanitation of such entities works. In its “answers” piece, Kristof wrote: “Euro-Med is led by a chairman whose statements in support of the Hamas-led attacks on Oct. 7 can’t be taken lightly,” although “citing a source does not constitute an endorsement of its leadership’s political views.”
But Kristof did not address the main concern – it is not the question of his endorsement that shows he is a sloppy journalist, it is the context that he failed to provide to readers. Bottom line: the original op-ed was not updated with this information and still presents Euro-Med with zero context, which means it still sanitizes Euro-Med and by doing so – aids Hamas.
2. Good faith
Basic journalism ethics require fairness. In his original piece, Kristof wrote that he spoke to former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who had no specific knowledge on the subject but said: “Do I believe it happens? Definitely. There are war crimes committed every day in the territories.”
Following the publication of the original piece on May 11, Olmert understood that he had been misled, and immediately sent a new comment to Kristof and to an editor at the Times. “Mr. Kristof’s article includes claims of extraordinary gravity… I did not validate these claims. I have no knowledge supporting these claims as I said to Mr. Kristof. Therefore, the positioning of my quote after pages of such allegations misrepresents my views.”
The Times did not publish Olmert’s comment, which was only exposed in another media outlet. Kristof and Kingsbury ignored the fact that they didn’t allow Olmert to retract his quote in their “answers” piece as well.
Why did the Times choose to omit this very relevant comment from readers? And why does the original piece still present the same text which Olmert clearly stated misrepresents his views? The Times’ choices make it very hard to claim fairness or good faith.
3. The timing
Ethical journalism calls for truth and also for minimizing harm of subjects and vulnerable individuals.
How does that align with the Times’ conduct in this case?
The Israeli Civil Commission’s report about the brutal mass rape of Israelis on October 7 had taken two years to compile and its publication date was scheduled two months in advance. The Times was offered early exposure to the Civil Commission’s report in order to elaborate on it once it comes out, as it had been offered to CNN and other media outlets. The Civil Commission’s report deals with the worst mass rape a Western country had ever known, so no one imagined any media outlet would be cynical enough to exploit advance knowledge of the publication date to spin a counter-narrative.
But the Times turned down the offer and then published Kristof’s column exactly one day ahead of the Civil Commission’s publication of the report, in an obvious attempt to rob the attention from hundreds of brutal rape and murder victims and their families.
Judging by what dominated the conversation that week, the Times’ spin had succeeded. The above information was issued by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, but has been corroborated with numerous sources. Still, in the “answers” piece, Kristof only said that “The commission’s work had no bearing on the timing for my column.” He then referred to a statement by a spokesman for the Times who dryly denied passing on the report or knowing about the timing of its release. Sadly, this is not the first time I have personally encountered a lie by a New York Times spokesperson.
4. The intent
True journalism requires impartiality and accuracy. In the “answers” piece, Kristof defended his unfounded allegations by saying that he clearly wrote that “It’s impossible to know how common sexual assaults against Palestinians are.” But in his original column, he also wrote that “The Israeli government rejects suggestions that it sexually abuses Palestinians, just as Hamas denied raping Israeli women.” This is a clear attempt to compare the Israeli government with a foreign terrorist organization and claim they are equal.
He ended his column with an even more troubling statement: “The horrific abuse inflicted on Israeli women on Oct. 7 now happens to Palestinians day after day.” This is an attempt to say that Israel is actually worse than Hamas, and that a brutal massacre and mass rape, dismembering, burning alive, and intentional torture of as many civilians as possible, is what Israel does every day. This claim is a flagrant lie that goes far beyond criticism.
The Israeli government deserves criticism on many accounts, but Kristof’s phrasing does not go against the Israeli government – it minimizes the inconceivable suffering hundreds of Israeli women endured before being murdered on October 7. It therefore encourages the many October 7 deniers out there, and makes the Times’ claim that the timing of Kristof’s original report was coincidental – even more hard to believe.
5. Ramification
Real journalism requires accountability. In the “answers” piece, Kristof fumbled a pointed question about the Times coverage which worsens antisemitism. He wrote: “When journalists covered the Hamas terror attack of Oct. 7, 2023, we were aware that vivid coverage of Hamas atrocities risked aggravating Islamophobia… The solution was not to soft-pedal coverage of Hamas… The solution is not to look away.”
The poor excuse of Islamophobia as a consequence of reporting on the October 7 massacre is another attempt to mislead.
Firstly, because the horrific massacre is incomparable with Israeli actions and this example is bad. Secondly, because Israel was criticized in the Times in a much harsher way than Hamas was along the war. Thirdly, because Islamophobia is not a growing problem in the US or as common as Kristof makes it sound.
If Kristof were a good journalist, he would check out the FBI hate crime data, which clearly shows that there were 22,815 hate crimes in the US in the past two years. Fifteen percent of them were against Jews. Two percent were anti-Islamic and another 1% were anti-Arab. So equating the sharp surge in antisemitism after October 7 to Islamophobia is just another myth that Kristof advocates while ignoring the ramifications of his deeds.
Unfortunately, these pretend “answers” to readers’ outrage and concerns is what The New York Times offered instead of minimal self scrutiny. Meanwhile, we have been seeing ridiculous lies from this week’s PR flotilla participants, claiming that they have been “beaten, tortured and sexually abused” while in Israeli detention. Prior PR flotillas tried to accuse Israel of what not on social media, but this week, accusations of rape during detention became headlines on CNN, the Guardian, Reuters, and others. Have others now taken their cue from The New York Times? Has it now become okay to cite every hateful idiot that says he was raped by an Israeli?
For those who have forgotten – journalism is supposed to be the professional gatekeeper of true and accurate information. To know the difference between a PR stunt and a massacre, between anti-Israel propaganda and proper criticism, between a credible source and a Hamas affiliate, and to convey that distinction to readers.
The writer is a columnist for Maariv.