Young enough not to quit and old enough to know better.
The New York Times’s yellow journalism
Just when we thought the New York Times (NYT) could not sink any lower than a tabloid rag, it upped the ante by publishing an article by its star, Pulitzer Prize-winning “journalist” Nicholas Kristof. For those unfamiliar with this charlatan, it is enough to say that he does very little reporting and relies on dubious sources and activist organizations like the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor out of Geneva, Switzerland, Save the Children, the Norwegian Refugee Council, and other NGOs with a history of anti-Israel bias or whose claims are questionable at best¹. Such is Kristof’s claim to fame, who in the past had to retract and correct information, but not before it had spread like wildfire and often compelled anti-Israel protests. This is the precedent set by the NYT’s journalistic excellence.
The Media Line¹, an NGO monitoring organization, quickly challenged the accusations Kristof leveled against Israel and the prison authorities handling Palestinian prisoners in Israel in the May 11, NYT column. The first challenge was directed at the insidious NGO Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, whose agenda is well documented as biased and anti-Israel. In 2013, the Israeli government identified its founder, Ramy Abdu, as a Hamas operative¹ and his organization as one of Hamas’s main institutions. It is also common knowledge that any “reporting” from Gaza is subject to the Hamas agenda. Consequently, any “journalism” out of Gaza by such NGOs should be taken with a grain of salt, and any newspaper publishing such swill should be considered just as irrelevant.
According to Andrea Peyser² of the New York Post, Ramy Abdu openly supports Hamas and referred to the murderers involved in the October 7th attacks as “heroic knights.” This is the type of source that Nicholas Kristof relies on for his anti-Israel columns. Even after being caught in a controversy regarding a photo of a starving child—originally captured by the prize-winning photographer Saher Alghorra, who falsely claimed it illustrated Israel’s policy of starvation—it was later shown that the child’s condition stemmed from cerebral palsy and was unrelated to starvation. Despite this incident, Kristof continues to work with Alghorra². Such actions highlight the ethical standards of Kristof and the NYT, which currently stands firmly behind him.
The May 11th Kristof article¹ was predominantly sourced by The Euro-Med NGO, which accounts for the outrageous accusations of cruelty to prisoners, including the training of dogs to rape accusation. One must have really reached a low point in moral acuity to come up with that. The fact that none of these claims can be verified leads to the conclusion that neither Kristof nor the NYT is interested in the truth, but bent in hurting Israel
With NYC as the epicenter of pogrom-like protests in Jewish neighborhoods, including synagogues, one must wonder what goes through the mind of an editor when giving the thumbs up to publish such a libelous article. What does the newspaper aim to achieve? Well, Newsrael³ might have the answer to that question. Whether coincidental or not, on May 11th, the same day of the Kristof article, Newsrael ³had an editorial on George Orwell’s take on antisemitism. The editorial quoted Orwell as saying that “One of the marks of antisemitism is an ability to believe stories that could not possibly be true”. In true Orwellian fashion, the NYT obviously believes that Israel trains raping dogs!
The rape-training dogs’ accusation is up there with Jews drinking the blood of children, a favorite medieval trope that pushed the Inquisition and persecution of Jews throughout Europe. Yet, the NYT did not find anything objectionable with a story questionably sourced and loaded with accusations that should have been laughed out of any respectable newsroom.
Establishments like the NYT should be held responsible for their publications, especially coming from the likes of Kristof, who has been caught in hoaxes and unreliable stories². Kristof’s problem is his journalistic laziness, which compels him to take the activist shortcut through questionable NGOs rather than investigate the truth. The irony is that in 2014, the NYT⁴ took Kristof to task for a story he championed, and which turned out to be a lie.
Kristof was enthusiastic about supporting Somaly Mam, a Cambodian anti-sex trafficking activist, and her story as a victim of such trafficking². Somaly Mam was the founder of her anti-sex trafficking foundation. Kristof wrote numerous articles, forwarded a book, and even collaborated on documentaries featuring Somaly. However, it was later revealed that she had fabricated her story of being a sex trafficking victim and subsequently resigned from her foundation. In 2014, NYT reporter Margaret Sullivan⁴ demanded that Kristof explain how he had been misled by Somaly’s deception. Instead of taking responsibility, he penned a blog in which he portrayed himself as a victim, claiming he had been “played,” and argued that journalists must rely on people telling the truth. Rather than acknowledging his own mistakes, he chose to present himself as the wronged party.
Eitan Fischberger⁵, an international relations and Middle East analyst, observed that Kristof seemed to have disregarded his 2014 realization about relying on misleading sources in his May 11 column regarding Israel. Kristof’s entire report on alleged abuse and cruelty towards Palestinians was based solely on interviews with 14 individuals claiming to have been abused, without any corroborating evidence. It appears that he was once again misled. Therefore, one might conclude that Kristof is either an incredibly gullible journalist or he is willing to be deceived when it serves to discredit Israel.
It is important to note that the Kristof column published on May 11 coincided with the release of a 300-page report detailing the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7¹. This timing appears to be an attempt to trivialize the events of October 7. The report was compiled after conducting 430 interviews, gathering testimonies, and reviewing over 10,000 photos and video segments. According to Media Line¹, the New York Times published Kristof’s column just hours before the report, titled “Silenced No More,” was released.
New York City’s current situation bears a striking resemblance to Germany in 1938. The mayor, who identifies as anti-Israel, has a wife with a history of making antisemitic statements about Israel and Jewish people. This sets the stage for the surge in antisemitism and harassment of Jews and their neighborhoods. This is particularly concerning given that New York City is home to the largest Jewish population in the United States⁶, with over two million Jewish residents, representing 10% of the metropolitan population. The documented presence of Sephardic Jews in New Amsterdam dates back to 1654, yet today they face harassment and attacks without accountability. Why is it that Kristof or the NYT chooses not to address this issue?
What drives the excessive anti-Israel rhetoric? Who benefits from it? In the case of the New York Times, there may be a temporary boost in readership because sensationalism attracts attention. However, over time, a loss of credibility will become a significant issue. Fiction presented as truth may gain initial traction, but once the real facts emerge, both the questionable journalism of Kristof and the New York Times will be seen as irrelevant.
The issue at hand is that newspapers and traditional media are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech. As a result, they often believe they are untouchable and can publish whatever they wish. While they do have some freedom in this regard, the public should hold them to the same ethical standards we expect from other trusted institutions. Trust in the media is at an all-time low, partly due to individuals like Kristof and outlets like The New York Times. When a once-reputable newspaper resorts to publishing unverified and potentially libelous material, it suggests a deeper issue within its culture. Unfortunately, antisemitism and hyperbolic anti-Israel sentiments have become part of the culture at the NYT. As Peyser² noted, “It’s a banner month for Jew-hating propaganda at The New York Times, where libel against the state of Israel is normalized and celebrated.”
–
¹The Media Line. May 12, 2026. NGO Monitor Challenges Kristof NY Times Column on Alleged Sexual Abuse of Palestinians – The Media Line
²Peyser, A. May 12, 2026. New York Times’ libelous campaign against Israel continues apace
³Newsreal. May 12, 2026. EDITORIAL: Yesterday’s NEWSRAEL editorial and yesterday’s NYT blood libel
⁴Sullivan, M. June 2, 2014. Nicholas Kristof Should Give Readers a Full Explanation About Somaly Mam – The New York Times
⁶Largest Jewish Communities in the US 2025 | Statistics & Facts – The Global Statistics