What determines whether an allegation of sexual assault is fit to print in The New York Times? Is it the depth of the verification, or does the alleged perpetrator’s identity matter? Two editorial decisions from May and June of 2026 offer a jarring contrast.
In the more recent, The Times said it was unable (or perhaps opted not) to corroborate sexual assault allegations against a Democratic Senate candidate with a known history of alcohol problems and a Nazi tattoo. But in May, the opinion section had no problem publishing unproven hearsay claims of widespread sexual assault of Palestinian prisoners by Israelis and the insane claim that Israeli dogs raped them.
The Kristof Piece: Uncorroborated Hearsay Allegations on Full Volume
In May 2026, unbothered by a lack of proof, The Times’ Nicholas Kristof published an opinion piece rife with unverified claims of widespread sexual assault by Israelis against Palestinian prisoners, including canine rape.
As CAMERA’s David Litman previously detailed in great length, there are umpteen reasons to be highly suspicious of Kristof’s claims. Many of the lawyers, organizations or others whom Kristof said connected him to the alleged victims were known to have antisemitic and/or anti-Israel agendas. Soon after publication, one person quoted by Kristof said the journalist misrepresented his views. Kristof has even admitted to being “hoodwinked” before, which makes his failure to corroborate claims that much more egregious.
Moreover, months before publishing Kristof’s piece, The Times knew that the Civil Commission report – which documented in excruciating detail Hamas’ widespread sexual violence both on Oct. 7, 2023, and while Israelis and other nationals were held hostage in Gaza thereafter – was due to be released the day after Kristof’s piece was published. According to other outlets, The Times was not interested in reporting on it.
Kristof also relied on Euro-Med Monitor, an NGO with Hamas ties, to falsely support the allegation that widespread sexual violence was part of Israeli state policy. But, as Litman noted, given that Kristof claimed Israel detained 20,000 people in the West Bank (not even including Gaza detainees), “[even] if all 14 cases are real, that hardly establishes the existence of ‘standard operating procedure’ of sexual violence.” In a best-case scenario for Kristof, he identified sexual violence against fewer than 0.07 percent of those detained.
In the case of alleged abuse against Palestinian prisoners, Kristof embraced vagueness and barely pretended to corroborate. For the unspecified percentage of claims he deemed verified, most, by his admission, were based on third-party hearsay, not first-hand accounts. His explanation of what he did or who he spoke with was so hazy there was no way to understand any kind of process.
As to the other allegations, Kristof did not tell readers he could not corroborate Israeli dogs were trained to rape prisoners.
Despite clearly partisan sources and Kristof’s abandonment of the journalistic requirement to corroborate, The Times gave these wild allegations – the most incredible of which are considered highly unlikely by experts – an uncritical megaphone.
As CAMERA’s Omri Tubi recently noted, The Times’ Executive Editor, Joseph Kahn, gave hints of wanting to distance himself from Kristof’s fundamentally flawed and explosive opinion piece. Two months and millions of views after the monstrous allegations were published, the editor remarked that Kristof’s opinion piece was not edited by the newsroom, and that the news department would not have done the same piece.
Platner Allegations: Verifiable First-Hand Allegations are Muted
By contrast, in June 2026, The Times reported first-hand accounts of women who alleged Graham Platner engaged in disturbing sexual and other conduct. The women provided The Times with ample information and multiple sources to confirm timelines and certain elements of their stories. Rather than do so, The Times did not pursue all provided contacts, muted the allegations, and claimed they could not fully corroborate it.
The women publicly critiqued how The Times reported their stories.
One, Lyndsey Fifield, posted on social media about how The Times claimed not to be able to corroborate her story after calling only two of the five sources she provided. Fifield recently revealed she gave CNN all the same messages, diaries and sources she gave to The Times and CNN was able to corroborate everything.
Another accuser, Jenny Racicot, shared off the record with The Times that Platner sexually assaulted her, per Politico. She told The Times she cut off contact with Platner after he came over drunk in 2021, but The Times downgraded his behavior to “reckless” and “unsettling,” writing that Racicot “declined to elaborate.”
In an ironic twist, The Times also declined to elaborate when Politico published Racicot’s rape allegations against Platner and asked The Times for comment.
What’s odd about this is that The New York Times is no stranger to writing about well-sourced, fact-based, shocking sex-related allegations. In the span of one week in 2019, The Times published at least five articles about Jeffrey Epstein, plus more than one opinion piece and a podcast episode. If The Times actually thought there was dog rape (or any other widespread sexual assault against Palestinians), there would have been, and should have been, numerous well-sourced articles corroborating the claims.
Regarding Platner, some allege partisanship as the reason behind The Times’ timid reporting on the women’s stories. While The Times could have taken action to verify, instead it told readers it was unable to corroborate serious allegations.
The Times gave wholly uncorroborated claims, where Israeli people and dogs were the alleged bad actors, a loudspeaker. The paper gave verifiable claims by women, where a Democratic Senate candidate was the alleged bad actor, a mute button.
Journalism should be defined by strict and equal application of skepticism. What these two alleged scandals demonstrate is that The Times embraces dangerous double standards. In reporting on Platner, the paper demanded an impossibly high threshold of verification or just did not want to try and verify, effectively ignoring a credible sexual assault story. To attack Israel, it abandoned real verification and science and embraced anonymous and terror-linked sources. By turning corroboration into a selective weapon, The Times has deeply damaged its own institutional credibility.