How Can Anything the New York Times Publishes Be Trusted?

The New York Times is widely recognized as a reliable and respected outlet.

But after publishing and then defending Nicholas Kristof’s now-infamous piece “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians,” despite its reliance on invalidated sources, including those tied to terrorist organizations, as well as factual inaccuracies that fail to meet the paper’s own editorial standards, how can anything the New York Times publishes be trusted?

Outrageous Claims

• Dogs can’t rape people. But in Kristof’s opinion article, inflammatory and false allegations about Israeli detention practices were made, including claiming that dogs have been “coached to rape prisoners.”
• Medical journals have never confirmed that dogs can rape people. Neither did Holocaust accounts nor a Pinochet recollection. They were all second-hand testimonies.
• Experts have made it clear that it may be impossible for dogs to perform the action of penetration as the dog must first become physically aroused, an action that does not occur on demand, and not to another species.
• There is no evidence whatsoever that the Israeli prison system has a program that trains dogs to rape people.

Flawed Sources

• Ramy Abdu and Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. Abdu, the founder of the so-called “human rights organization,” has close ties to Hamas. His brother is wanted by Italian authorities for taking part in a Hamas fundraising scheme. He has been previously pictured with Ismail Haniyeh.
• Issa Amro. In July 2024, he told Kristof he had been “sexually assaulted” by Israeli soldiers when he was arrested on Oct. 7, 2023. But only months earlier, describing the same arrest to the Washington Post, Mr. Amro said he had merely been “threatened” with sexual assault. The change in his story is not raised in Kristof’s piece.
• Sami al-Sai. He has a documented history of glorifying terrorists and celebrating armed attacks against Israelis and was arrested by the Palestinian Intelligence Services in Tulkarm on charges of incitement. The account of rape he gave to Kristof differs from the account he gave to the Israeli NGO B’Tselem in July 2025. He worked for Al Jazeera, which first published the dog rape account two years ago.
• The Committee to Protect Journalists. Kristof refers to it as a “respected” organization, but it has a history of identifying Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists as journalists.
• Ehud Olmert. The former Israeli prime minister, who served prison time for corruption, was quoted as saying the sexual violence “definitely” happens. Once the article was published, Olmert publicly distanced himself from the atrocious claim: “Mr. Kristof’s article includes claims of extraordinary gravity: that Israeli authorities have directed the rape of children, that dogs have been used as instruments of sexual assault, that systematic sexual torture is state policy. I did not validate these claims,” Olmert said in the statement to The Free Press.

Kristof’s Recurring Problem

This is not the first time Kristof has faced scrutiny over emotionally charged reporting built on unreliable sources.

• In a November 2023 piece, he wrote: “I can’t verify their accounts, and Israel’s version may be different. The Middle East is full of alternative narratives, each real to those inhabiting it…” As a result, his work has repeatedly drawn criticism for prioritizing compelling narratives over rigorous verification standards. 
• His previous work has relied on sources who have publicly supported terrorism. Their stories are unable to be publicly corroborated, and no public trace exists of the victims they claim. 
• In 2008, Kristof visited Cambodia to publish a profile of Somaly Mam, who claimed she was trafficked. In 2014, her story was brought into question, prompting Kristof to acknowledge that it was likely falsified.

Does The New York Times Uphold Its Own Standards?

The concerns surrounding this latest article are not isolated. Multiple analysts, journalists, and media critics have since published detailed breakdowns identifying inconsistencies, sourcing concerns, factual gaps, and misleading framing in Kristof’s reporting on this issue.

• Relying on anonymous sources for a story prevents verification and accountability. In The Free Press, Eli Lake noted that “One might expect a journalist who suffered such a gruesome experience to publish an account under his own byline. Kristof claims that many of his sources were anonymous because of the shame associated with sexual violence in the Arab world. At the same time, many Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) fighters in Gaza have also moonlighted as “journalists.”” It is therefore impossible to know who the anonymous sources are and if they have potential ties that could impede their impartiality.
• Chapter 2 of the New York Times’ handbook on Ethical Journalism states that every staff member is responsible for “carefully checking facts.” That standard is difficult to reconcile with reporting built on contradictory accounts, unverifiable accusations, and inflammatory claims.
• The Guidelines on Integrity likewise state that staff must “do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns,” ensuring that their journalism is “beyond reproach.” This includes thorough fact-checking, referring to making corrections as an “ethical responsibility,” allowing for rebuttals, and using anonymous sources truthfully and only when otherwise unable to refer to sources.

Nicholas Kristof’s article evidently does not hold up to the New York Times’ own editorial standards. If an article lacking conclusive evidence relies on faulty sources and contains factual errors and inconsistencies, it raises broader questions about how much trust readers can place in other articles published by the New York Times.

It is time for the New York Times to acknowledge that this article failed to uphold its own editorial standards. If the New York Times does not see fit to issue a correction, print a retraction, or launch a Standards investigation into how this op-ed was published, then readers are left with a far larger question: How can anything the New York Times publishes be trusted?

For more information or to get in touch, email: [email protected]