New York Times shareholders filed a lawsuit against the paper’s parent company Wednesday, arguing the paper failed to be accurate and transparent in its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.
The suit asks the judge to force the Times to provide internal records pertaining to the paper’s coverage of the war. Shareholders claim they are entitled to know whether the board of directors is ensuring the newsroom is adhering to its standards of journalistic integrity.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, or NCPPR, which filed the suit along with the State Board of Administration of Florida, is represented by the National Jewish Advocacy Center, or NJAC.
“Many New York Times readers have perceived a consistent anti-Jewish and anti-Israel bias for quite some time,” David Benger, an attorney who is representing NJAC, told The Free Press. “Shareholders are entitled to see whether the board was watching at all.”
The Times rejected previous requests for internal records, claiming the shareholders are trying to silence protected journalism.
The petition filed by the shareholders alleges that there has been “repeated publication of materially false or baseless factual assertions” and that “journalistic standards have been weaponized within the company to serve the personal agendas of unchecked editors.”
Representation for the Times, in a formal response letter, said the demand is “peppered with phrases designed to involve legal doctrines” but that the NCPPR’s “true objective” is “to chill viewpoints with which it disagrees and advance a political agenda at odds with the tax-exempt purpose for which it was formed.”
“Because NCPPR’s stated purpose for an inspection demand is pretextual, and its actual purpose for the demand is an improper purpose and constitutes bad faith, the Demand is deficient,” wrote lawyers on behalf of the Times.
‘It is clear that when it comes to coverage of Israel, there is no oversight’
The suit alleges there were “many instances of anti-Israel bias” in the Times’ coverage of the war, caused, at least in part, by a lack of editorial oversight.
“It is clear that when it comes to coverage of Israel, there is no oversight,” Benger told The Free Press. “It is time for the adults in the room to step up and exercise their supervisory authority over the litany of errors and inaccuracies in The New York Times’ Israel coverage.”
In the demand, petitioners acknowledged that the company “publishes an enormous volume of journalism, and some error is unavoidable,” but went on to say that repeated errors — some of which “appear to have been deliberately made” — followed by delayed concessions create a cause for inspection.
The Times says the suit is a ‘thinly disguised effort’ to make a political statement
Representation for the Times said the suit is “deficient and could be refused outright,” claiming that the NJAC is politically motivated.
“Your selective culling of other stories that generated controversies is a thinly disguised effort to mask your real, and continuing, purpose: making a political statement about the Nicholas Kristof article,” Blanchard said in a letter on behalf of the Times.
The comment refers to one of the instances referenced in the suit: an opinion article written by Kristof, titled “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians,” in which he said there is “no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes” and that it was “impossible to know how common” such assaults are.
Kristof said his reporting was “based on conversations with 14 men and women who said they had been sexually assaulted by Israeli settlers or members of the security forces.” Following publication, questions arose about the accuracy of the sources and quotes used, according to the lawsuit.
“Many aspects of the story, including quotes and sources were criticized and shown to be exaggerated, manipulated, and unsupported,” the petition said.
The Times Opinion editor wrote that the article was fact-checked before publication “to ensure that every testimony and anecdote he personally reported was supported by independent sources” and that “editors found no errors.”
The suit includes testimony from a Jewish whistleblower, formerly employed by the Times
The suit includes testimony from an anonymous whistleblower, a Jewish woman previously employed by the Times’ video desk, who raised concerns over antisemitic and anti-Israel bias in the Times reporting.
According to the suit, when the whistleblower discussed her concerns with a human resources representative, she was told, “If you don’t like our values here, maybe you should go find a place whose values align with yours.”
The whistleblower said she raised concerns about antisemitic and anti-Israel bias on her desk at least 15 separate times between 2019 and when she left in 2026, but significant improvement was not made.
“The public deserves a better picture of how the Times manufactures the news when Jews or Israel are involved,” the whistleblower said to The Free Press.
The Times and NJAC continue in conversation over appropriate steps moving forward
Lawyers for the Times and NJAC have been engaged in continuing conversation over whether the Times should be compelled to provide the requested documents.
Representation for the Times said they are “willing to engage in good faith” about what they have identified as deficiencies in the shareholders’ demand, if the stated deficiencies “can be addressed” and a more “narrowly tailored request that is strictly limited to information necessary and essential to a proper purpose” is provided.
NJAC repeatedly responds to the Times comments by saying that the current demand “sets forth a proper purpose, was made in good faith, and seeks records directly related to NCPPR’s interest as a shareholder.”
“The First Amendment does not bar inspection,” NJAC said.