American journalism has long prided itself on a tradition of dispassionate reporting, a stark contrast to the openly partisan press found in much of Europe. But that line is blurring, and critics say the New York Times—once the gold standard—is leading the charge downhill.
Jeremy Hurewitz, a former journalist and author of “Sell Like a Spy,” argues that the paper has abandoned its sacred duty to report without bias. In a sharp critique, he points to a series of incidents that he says reveal a pattern of editorial failure, particularly in stories about Israel and Gaza.
Kristoff Column Sparks Fury
The latest flashpoint is a May 11 column by Nicholas Kristoff, which alleged that Israelis trained dogs to sexually assault Palestinian prisoners. The claim was swiftly debunked by animal behavior experts, and the Israeli government has filed a defamation suit against the Times. Hurewitz notes that the column relied on unnamed sources and a European nonprofit with documented ties to Hamas—a breach of the paper’s own fact-checking standards.
The timing raised eyebrows: the column ran just a day before the release of a detailed report on sexual atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023. “If you have doubts about the timing, you might be credulous enough to apply for a job as a fact-checker at the Times,” Hurewitz writes.
A Pattern of Missteps
This is not an isolated incident. Early in the Gaza war, the Times ran a front-page story blaming an Israeli missile for a hospital explosion that killed hundreds. U.S. intelligence later attributed the blast to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The paper issued a small correction, but the damage was done.
Then there was the front-page photo of a skeletal child, presented as evidence of starvation in Gaza. It later emerged the child had cerebral palsy. Again, the Times corrected quietly. The photographer won a Pulitzer Prize, with the committee citing the image as proof of “devastation and starvation”—even though the forced starvation narrative had largely collapsed due to lack of evidence.
These episodes, Hurewitz argues, are symptoms of a deeper rot. The internet and social media have gutted newsroom budgets, slashed jobs, and driven a decline in professional standards. Local newspapers, once the backbone of community accountability, have been crushed, leaving a vacuum filled by unaccountable “citizen journalists.”
The Rise of Partisan Reporting
Hurewitz contrasts the old American model—where partisanship was confined to opinion pages—with European newspapers like Spain’s El Pais and El Mundo, which openly cater to ideological camps. Now, he says, the Times has effectively adopted that approach, but without the transparency.
He also points to a broader cultural crisis: declining trust in media is fueling the growth of partisan outlets. A recent article on The World Signal highlighted how distrust in mainstream media fuels the explosive growth of citizen journalism, often without the safeguards of professional training.
The erosion of objectivity has real-world consequences. Hurewitz cites the example of “journalist” Ashley Rojas, who covered the trial of Luigi Mangione and declared outside the courtroom of the victim, “F— Brian Thompson. His children are better off without him.” Such incidents, he argues, are symptoms of a profession in crisis.
A Broken Fourth Estate
The New York Times has failed its readers and abandoned a sacred tradition, Hurewitz concludes. “We’re all poorer for it.” As the EEOC sues the Times over alleged bias against a white male editor, the paper’s credibility faces new scrutiny from all sides.
For a generation that grew up trusting the Gray Lady, the shift is jarring. Whether the Times can restore its reputation—or whether American journalism will continue its slide into partisan warfare—remains an open question.
