The New York Times Defends Coverage of Hamas Terror Attack Amid Scrutiny
The New York Times is under scrutiny for its in-depth coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict from December. Despite questions raised, the publication stands firm in its reporting on the terror attack.
Sign up for the daily digest chronicling the evolving media landscape in the “Reliable Sources” newsletter where a version of this article first appeared.
The New York Times is under scrutiny for a comprehensive investigative report it released regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict in December.
A high-profile article titled “‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7” highlighted the various atrocities committed by Hamas against women during a terror attack. The article concluded that these acts were not isolated incidents, but part of a wider pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.
There is significant evidence, as reported by CNN and other news outlets, indicating that Hamas engaged in sexual violence against women during the surprise assault that resulted in the death of at least 1,200 Israelis. However, certain aspects of The Times’ reporting on this matter have come under scrutiny.
The Intercept recently published a lengthy article, approximately 7,000 words long, criticizing how The Times reported on the war. The piece, written by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Jeffrey Gettleman, along with freelancers Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella, raised questions about certain aspects of the story.
Earlier this week, The Times publicly denounced Schwartz for liking pro-Israel posts on social media, including one that suggested turning the Gaza Strip into a "slaughterhouse." The Times stated that this action violated company policy and they are currently investigating the matter.
However, there are more issues with the reporting than just Schwartz's social media activity. In fact, the opening anecdote in The Times' story has been called into question - even by the victim's own family.
The article started with a disturbing description. It talked about a video showing Gal Abdush lying on the ground with her dress torn, legs spread, and her private parts exposed. The authors mentioned that based on the video evidence, some Israeli police officials believed that Abdush had been raped.
The Times did not provide any additional evidence to support the claim. According to The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim, and Daniel Boguslaw, The Times mentioned WhatsApp messages from Abdush and her husband to their family, but failed to mention that some family members doubt the validity of the crucial messages that Israeli officials claim. In a later report, The Times acknowledged that some members of the Abdush family dispute this, with one brother-in-law stating he spoke to Ms. Abdush's husband before his death.
In interviews, the Abdush family revealed that they were not informed about Gal's rape during the October 7 attack until The Times reached out to them.
"We didn't know about the rape at first. We were only told about it when a journalist from The New York Times approached us," her mother shared with the Israeli outlet YNet. "They mentioned that they had checked different testimonies and concluded that Gal had experienced a sexual assault. Even now, we are still unsure about the details."
"It wasn't until after The New York Times investigation that we found out from the reporters that my sister had been raped," Abdush's brother also mentioned to YNet.
The Intercept previously reported that concerns about The NYT's reporting were not only held by members of Abdush's family. In late January, Boguslaw and Grim revealed that an episode of "The Daily" podcast had been put on hold due to an intense internal debate about the accuracy of the paper's original reporting on the topic.
In a statement on Thursday, a spokesperson for The Times expressed confidence in the accuracy of their reporting and supported the team's thorough investigation, which was carefully researched, sourced, and edited. The Times also contested several claims made by The Intercept in their Wednesday article, including the methods used in their reporting, the portrayal of Schwartz's military service, the assertion that no forensic evidence of sexual violence existed, and the denial that an episode of "The Daily" was canceled due to fact-checking errors.
The Gray Lady's management is currently addressing leaks as The Times and The Intercept challenge each other's reporting. According to Vanity Fair's Charlotte Klein, the newspaper has initiated a leak investigation by questioning around two dozen staff members. They are trying to determine how internal details about the editorial process of the podcasts were disclosed.
The Times spokesperson, while not denying Klein's report, stated, "We prefer not to discuss internal matters. It is important for our newsroom to operate on trust and collaboration, and we expect all our colleagues to uphold these values."
Reputable newsrooms must ensure their reporting is accurate before publishing to maintain credibility. When stories lack strong evidence or reporters behave inappropriately on social media, it can harm the trust in a news organization. This can lead audiences to question the truth of larger narratives.
In this case, there is significant evidence suggesting that Hamas committed sexual assaults during the October 7 attack. However, the Times' decision to start the story with an anecdote later disputed by the victim's family, along with the questionable actions of a freelancer, has provided critics with reasons to doubt the accuracy of the report.
That’s corrosive not only for the Gray Lady, but the public record at large.
