The New York Times controversies
The New York Times has been the subject of criticism from a variety of sources. Criticism aimed at the newspaper has been in response to individual controversial reporters, as well as alleged liberal political bias.
The New York Times used to have a public editor who acted as an ombudsman and "investigates matters of journalistic integrity". The sixth and last Times public editor was Liz Spayd, who contributed her last piece in June 2017.
A Test of the News on the Russian Revolution 1917-1920
In 1920, Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz investigated the NYT news coverage of the Russian Revolution from 1917 to 1920. The study, published as a supplement of The New Republic concluded that the Times' reporting was neither unbiased nor accurate. The newspaper's news stories were not based on facts, but "were determined by the hopes of the men who made up the news organisations." The newspaper referred to events that had not taken place, atrocities that did not exist, and reported no fewer than 91 times that the Bolshevik regime was on the verge of collapse.Lippmann's biographer Ronald Steel sums it up: "The news about Russia is an example of what people wanted to see, not what happened," Lippmann and Merz noted critically. "The main censor and the main propagandist was the hope and fear in the minds of reporters and editors."
Los Alamos investigation
In 1999, the Times ran a series of stories about alleged theft of classified documents from Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico. The prime suspect, Taiwan-born U.S. citizen Dr. Wen Ho Lee, had his name leaked to the Times by U.S. Energy Department officials. Dr. Lee was indicted on 59 counts and jailed in solitary confinement for 278 days until he accepted a plea bargain from the government. The alleged breach of security became a catalyst for the creation of the National Nuclear Security Administration. This was similar to how the 9/11 attacks led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Dr. Lee was released after the government's case could not be proven.President Clinton issued a public apology to Dr. Lee over his treatment. The federal judge in charge of the case, James Aubrey Parker, remarked that "top decision makers in the executive branch... have embarrassed our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen." Dr. Lee filed a lawsuit under the Privacy Act alleging that officials had leaked false and incriminating information to the media before charges had been filed. Dr. Lee's lawsuit was settled in 2006, just before the U.S. Supreme Court was set to decide whether to hear the case. The issues were similar to those in the Plame affair criminal investigation, when Times reporter Judith Miller spent 2½ months in jail rather than reveal her government source.
The 1619 Project
, a long-form journalism project re-evaluating slavery and its legacy in the United States by investigative journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, has been subject to substantial criticism as evidence of activism having replaced reporting. A group of historians wrote to The New York Times Magazine editor-in-chief Jake Silverstein, expressing concern over what they alleged were inaccuracies and falsehoods fundamental to Hannah-Jones' reporting. Only the first of Silverstein's responses to the historians' letter were published by the magazine.Anthrax attacks
On October 12, 2001, Times reporter Judith Miller became one of several victims of alleged anthrax attacks. The book , which Miller had co-authored with two other Times staffers, had been published ten days earlier on October 2. It became a top New York Times bestseller within a few weeks. Its cover art depicted a white envelope like those used in the anthrax incidents. The text, written before the September 11 attacks, made reference to Islamic jihadists:In 2002, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote a series of columns indirectly suggesting that Dr. Steven Hatfill, a former U.S. Army germ-warfare researcher named as a "person of interest" by the FBI, might be a "likely culprit" in the anthrax attacks. Dr. Hatfill was never charged with any crime. In 2004, Dr. Hatfill sued the Times and Kristof for libel, claiming defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
After years of proceedings, the case was dismissed in 2007, and the dismissal was upheld on appeal. In 2008, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which refused to grant certiorari, effectively leaving the dismissal in place. The basis for the dismissal was that Dr. Hatfill was a "public figure" and he had not proved malice on the part of the Times.
Jayson Blair affair
In 2003, the Times admitted that Jayson Blair, one of its reporters, had committed repeated journalistic fraud over a span of several years. The general professionalism of the paper was questioned, though Blair immediately resigned following the incident. Questions of affirmative action in journalism were also raised, since Blair is black. The paper's top two editors – Howell Raines, the executive editor, and Gerald M. Boyd, managing editor – resigned their posts following the incident.Judith Miller
Second Iraq War
Judith Miller wrote a series of exclusive and prominently displayed articles "strongly suggest Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction" using Ahmad Chalabi as her source prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This aided the George W. Bush administration in making the case for war.Valerie Plame affair
In October 2005, Times reporter Judith Miller was released from prison after 85 days, when she agreed to testify to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s grand jury after receiving a personal waiver, both on the phone and in writing, of her earlier confidential source agreement with Lewis "Scooter" Libby. No other reporter whose testimony had been sought in the case had received such a direct and particularized release. Her incarceration has helped fuel an effort in Congress to enact a federal shield law, comparable to the state shield laws which protect reporters in 31 of the 50 states. After her second appearance before the grand jury, Miller was released from her contempt of court finding. Miller resigned from the paper on November 9, 2005.CampusJ
CampusJ Jewish Collegiate News was a website covering Jewish news on college and university campuses with a network of student journalists. In March 2005, CampusJ broke the story that The New York Times had negotiated a deal with Columbia University administrators to exclude student response in an article on academic bias in exchange for exclusive access to a report.CampusJ, part of the J-Blogosphere, was launched in February 2005 by editor and publisher Steven I. Weiss of Canonist. The last posting was dated May 20, 2007. By 2008, the site appeared defunct, and many of the sections had no new content for months. CampusJ's staff of student reporters covered the Jewish news on thirty or more campuses, including American University, George Washington University, McGill, Northwestern, Rutgers and Washington University, by reporting for campus-specific school homepages.
National Security Agency revelations delayed
On December 16, 2005, an article by The New York Times revealed that the Bush administration had ordered the National Security Agency to intercept telephone conversations between suspected terrorists in the U.S. and those in other countries without first obtaining court warrants for the surveillance, apparently in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and without the knowledge or consent of the Congress. A federal judge recently held that the plan revealed by the Times was unconstitutional, and hearings have been held on this issue in Congress. The article noted that reporters and editors at the Times had known about the intelligence-gathering program for approximately a year but had, at the request of White House officials, delayed publication to conduct additional reporting. The Justice Department has launched an investigation to determine the sources of the classified information obtained by the Times. The men who reported the stories, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting in 2006.Because of the lapse in reporting Edward Snowden decided not to supply the New York Times with his information, choosing to go to the Guardian and Washington Post instead.
Terrorist Finance Tracking Program
Much controversy was caused when, on June 23, 2006, The Times revealed the existence of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a CIA/Department of Treasury scheme to access transactional database of the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. In September 2006, the Belgian government declared that the SWIFT dealings with U.S. government authorities were, in fact, a breach of Belgian and European privacy laws.Iran
On December 22, 2006 at the request of the Bush Administration, the paper removed sections of an Op-Ed piece critical of the administration's policy towards Iran which contained publicly available information that Iran cooperated after the 9/11 attacks and offered to negotiate a diplomatic settlement in 2003.MoveOn.org ad controversy
On Monday, September 10, 2007, the Times ran a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org questioning the integrity of General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, entitled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" The Times only charged MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, $65,000 for the advertisement that, according to public relations director Abbe Serphos, normally costs around $181,692, or roughly a 64% discount. Serphos declined to explain the discount.Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis denied the rate charged indicated a political bias and said it was the paper's policy not to disclose the rate paid by any advertiser. "We do not distinguish the advertising rates based on the political content of the ad," Mathis told Reuters. "The advertising folks did not see the content of the ad before the rate was quoted," she said, adding that there were over 30 different categories of ads with varying rates. Mathis confirmed the open rate for an ad of that size and type was around $181,000. Among reasons for lower rates are advertisers buying in bulk or taking a standby rate, she said. "There are many instances when we have published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance we take on our own editorial pages," she said.
Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor who blogs on media at buzzmachine.com, said the key question for the Times was could any other political or advocacy group get the same rate under the same circumstances. "The quandary the Times gets stuck in is they don't want to admit you can buy an ad for that rate, no matter who you are," Jarvis said, noting that with print advertising revenues in newspapers generally decline to offer big discounts.
On a more general note, Jarvis said U.S. papers should emulate their counterparts in Britain where, for example, The Guardian makes no effort to hide its liberal stance. "In the U.S., I would argue newspapers should be more transparent and open about the views taken... and The Times is liberal," he said.
Advertising Age reported that "MoveOn bought its ad on a 'standby' basis, under which it can ask for a day and placement in the paper but doesn't get any guarantees." A subsequent full-page ad bought by Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani to rebut MoveOn.org's original ad was purchased at the same standby rate. MoveOn later paid The Times the full rate once the newspaper publicly acknowledged that "an advertising sales representative made a mistake."
Corporate-influence concerns
In their book Manufacturing Consent, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky analyze major U.S. media outlets, with an emphasis on The Times. They believe that a bias exists which is neither liberal nor conservative in nature, but aligned towards the interests of corporations, which own most of these media outlets and also provide the majority of their advertising revenue. The authors explain that this bias functions in all sorts of ways:"by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society."
Chomsky and Herman also touch on the importance of this perceived bias in The Times:
"history is what appears in The New York Times archives; the place where people will go to find out what happened is The New York Times. Therefore it's extremely important if history is going to be shaped in an appropriate way, that certain things appear, certain things not appear, certain questions be asked, other questions be ignored, and that issues be framed in a particular fashion."
Duke University lacrosse case reporting
In their 2007 book Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustice of the Duke Lacrosse Case, KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, Jr. sharply criticize The New York Times for their editorial judgment and its effect on the case investigation. It says that the original reports by Joe Drape tended to exonerate the accused players, which contradicted Times' editorial stance. This led to Drape's quick dismissal and replacement by Duff Wilson who took a pro prosecution stance.Also covering the case, sports writer Selena Roberts, made assertions, that "Something happened March 13." Furthermore, Roberts writes, “Players have been forced to give up their DNA, but to the dismay of investigators, none have come forward to reveal an eyewitness account.” Johnson points out that this statement was not true. The captains’ March 28, 2006 statement or examined the defense attorneys’ subsequent press conference both described the captains’ cooperation with police, occurred before she penned her column. The Times never ran a correction. Later Roberts in an interview in the Big Lead said, "I wrote that a crime didn’t have to occur for us to inspect the irrefutable evidence of misogyny and race baiting that went on that night."
Daniel Okrent, former Times ombudsman admitted to the bias in the Times coverage of the case. He said, "It was too delicious a story. It conformed too well to too many preconceived notions of too many in the press: white over black, rich over poor, athletes over non-athletes, men over women, educated over non-educated. Wow. That's a package of sins that really fit the preconceptions of a lot of us."
John McCain-lobbyist article criticism
The February 21, 2008 The New York Times published an article on John McCain's alleged relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman and other involvement with special interest groups. The article received a widespread criticism among both liberals and conservatives, McCain supporters and non-supporters as well as talk radio personalities. Robert S. Bennett, whom McCain had hired to represent him in this matter, defended McCain's character. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain."And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest and honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him, and I think for the New York Times to dig this up just shows that Senator McCain's public statement about this is correct. It's a smear job. I'm sorry. "
Former staffer to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton campaigner Lanny Davis said the article "had no merit." Stating that he did not support McCain's bid for the White House, Davis, who had himself lobbied for the same cause Iseman lobbied McCain for, said that McCain only wrote a letter to the FCC to ask them to "act soon" and refused to write a letter that supported the sale of the television station the article talked about. Journalistic observers also criticized the article, albeit in a milder language. Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, suggested that the article does not make clear the nature of McCain's alleged "inappropriate" behavior: "The phrasing is just too vague." The article was later criticized by the White House and by several news organizations including the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board. Commentator Bill O'Reilly raised the question about why the paper had endorsed McCain on January 25, 2008 for the Republican nomination if they had information that alleged an inappropriate relationship. The Boston Globe, owned by the Times, declined to publish the story, choosing instead to run a version of the same story written by the competing Washington Post staff. That version focused almost exclusively on the pervasive presence of lobbyists in McCain's campaign and did not mention the sexual relationship that the Times article hinted at.
In response to the criticism, the Times editor Bill Keller was "surprised by the volume" and "by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision ". The diverse sentiments by the readers were summarized in a separate article by Clark Hoyt, the Times public editor, who concluded: "I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."
In September 2008, a McCain senior aide charged: "Whatever The New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day impugns the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin.... Everything that is read in The New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective."
In December 2008, Iseman filed a sued The New York Times, alleging that the paper had defamed her by, in her view, falsely implying that she had an illicit romantic relationship with McCain. In February 2009, the suit "was settled without payment and The Times did not retract the article." Unusually, however, The Times agreed to publish a statement from Iseman's lawyers on the Times website.
Alessandra Stanley errors
is a television critic. Complaints have been raised regarding the accuracy of her reporting. Her tribute to Walter Cronkite on July 18, 2009 had eight factual errors. Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The New York Times described Stanley as "much admired by editors for the intellectual heft of her coverage of television" but "with a history of errors". The New York Times printed a correction:
An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. “The CBS Evening News” overtook “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of “The CBS Evening News” in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International.
An earlier contentious wording was on September 5, 2005 in an article on Hurricane Katrina where she wrote "Fox's Geraldo Rivera did his rivals one better: yesterday, he nudged an Air Force rescue worker out of the way so his camera crew could tape him as he helped lift an older woman in a wheelchair to safety." The Times later acknowledged that no nudge was visible on the broadcast tape.
Story about fathers
In 2017, the New York Times was criticized for an article, headlined "How Vital Are Women? This Town Found Out as They Left to March," about fathers from Montclair, New Jersey who looked after their children while their wives participated in the Women's March. To some, the article "seemed to reinforce three old-fashioned tropes about gender and parenting: Men can’t handle parenting tasks; men who manage to handle the basics of parenting are exceptional and worthy of a news story; and parenting is fundamentally the work of women." The freelance writer who wrote the story apologized, and the Metro section editor stated: "It was a bad idea from the get-go. It was conceived with the best intentions, but it fell flat. And I regret it."Anti-Indian sentiment
The newspaper's coverage of India has been heavily criticized by Sumit Ganguly, a professor of political science, for its "hectoring" and "patronizing" tone towards India. He finds anti-India bias in coverage of the Kashmir Conflict, the Hyde Act and other India-related matters. Similar charges of racism against Indians have been levelled by the Huffington Post.United States lawmaker Kumar P. Barve described a recent editorial on India as full of "blatant and unprofessional factual errors or omissions" and having a "haughty, condescending, arrogant and patronizing" tone. In September 2014, The New York Times published a cartoon showing a stereotypical Indian turban-wearing man with a cow knocking at the door of an "elite space club". This was their response to recent accomplishments by the Indian Space Research Organization. The cartoon "drew immediate criticism for being racist in content, and for engaging in classist and racist stereotyping".
The New York Times has also opposed India's entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group while the US administration led by President Barack Obama was actively supporting India's membership. This view was criticized for Indophobic bias by several western and Indian experts on nuclear issues. The New York Times has also published editorials attacking traditional Indian dress sari as a "conspiracy by Hindu Nationalists", which was widely criticized for ignorance and grossly representing the sari and for promoting Orientalism.
In March 2019, The New York Times received sharp criticism when it referred to Pulwama suicide bombing, which was carried out by the Pakistani terrorist outfit JeM as an "explosion". The headline of the article read "In India's Election Season, an Explosion Interrupts Modi's Slump". The wording was later corrected after receiving a massive critical response, including from the former Pakistani ambassador to the US.
Abu Huzaifa al-Kanadi
Caliphate, a podcast for the New York Times, has received numerous criticism after Abu Huzaifa al-Kanadi admitted on the podcast that he “murdered people” while he was fighting for the Islamic State group. Numerous conservatives called for action against him after his statement, including Candice Bergen. She criticized the liberal government after not ordering law enforcement against him. Bergen also called for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale to reveal whether the government knows where he is or not, but Goodale stated that it was the “opposition of keeping Canadians safe”. Huzaifa also received concerns from television journalist Diana Swain that he may be “lying” to The New York Times or CBC News.Anti-British sentiment
In January 2020, Douglas Murray claimed that the New York Times was "waging a culture war vendetta against" the United Kingdom "but in doing so it is waging a campaign of misinformation against its own readers". Kelly Jane Torrance at The Spectator, said "Ever since Britain voted to leave the European Union, the Gray Lady — as the paper is known, thanks to its pompous and earnest tone — has become relentlessly critical of the UK". Torrance went on to say "If you were to read only the NYT, you’d think there was little hope for backward, bigoted Britain".Publishing leaked photos from the Manchester bombing
On May 24, 2017, The New York Times caused outrage among the British police and government when it published leaked photos showing the scene of the Manchester Arena bombing. Counter terror police chiefs said the leak undermined their investigation and victims' and witnesses' confidence. The New York Times published photos it says were gathered by UK authorities at the scene of the attack, including the remnants of a backpack, nuts and screws, and a device identified as a "possible detonator". Greater Manchester Police were said to be "furious" and said they would stop sharing information with the US. President Donald Trump the next day in a NATO summit condemned the media leaks, calling it "deeply troubling" and a "grave threat to our national security". The New York Times defended its decision to publish the photos, saying they were "neither graphic nor disrespectful of victims".Austerity
In May 2018, Peter S. Goodman wrote a piece called, “In Britain, austerity is changing everything”, with the author basing his story on a brief trip to Prescot in Lancashire. Douglas Murray described the column as a "warped idea of the true state of a nation". Goodman claimed that the local fire station had been shut, despite a new one just having just been unveiled. He also claimed the local museum had “receded into history” when the Prescot Museum was still open to the public. Goodman later claimed on social media that actual facts may not be true, nevertheless, the “perception” was correct. Kelly Jane Torrance at The Spectator, said "Goodman’s dispatch could be dismissed as an egregious bit of bad reporting".Yorkshire pudding
In May 2018 the New York Times came under criticism, including from the tourist office of the city of York, for describing Yorkshire pudding as a "large, fluffy pancake" and recommending it be served with "syrup, preserves, confectioners' sugar or cinnamon sugar". A presenter for the BBC stated that the Yorkshire pudding's history was longer than that of the USA.London restaurants
In August 2018, Robert Draper alleged the UK had been subsisting mostly "on porridge and boiled mutton" until very recently. Douglas Murray dismissed the attack as archaic and wrong. Draper had also frequently referred to London's Mayfair as "Mayfield" in the article that had to be corrected at a later date.Petty crime
In December 2018, the Twitter account of the New York Times were asking people to submit stories to the paper if they had “experienced a petty crime in London”. The Guardian described the public response on Twitter as "a sarcastic deluge".Claims of a racism and extremism
In May 2018, Maya Goodfellow, a writer for the New York Times and The Guardian wrote a piece titled "A New Face Won’t Change the British Government’s Racist Heart". Goodfellow claimed that the appointment of Sajid Javid as Chancellor of the Exchequer became "a shield for a government’s institutionally racist policies". In the piece, Goodfellow provided no evidence of any alleged racist policies. Kelly Jane Torrance at The Spectator said the piece "focused on Javid’s race and decried the ‘cruel’ and ‘inhumane’ immigration policies of the Conservative government. It did not note that immigration is still running at record levels. In March 2019,Sam Byers wrote a piece for the New York Times titled "Britain Is Drowning Itself in Nostalgia". Byers described the UK as “poisoned” with “colonial arrogance” and suggested it was a "solipsistic backwater". Douglas Murray compared the piece to a work of fiction. In June 2019, sociological theorist William Davies wrote a piece called "A Fanatical Sect Has Hijacked British Politics". Douglas Murray argued "What was this fanatical sect? ISIS? Extinction Rebellion? Followers of Krusty the Clown? No, the paper disappointingly revealed that the people in question were Brexit supporters and the evidence that they had hijacked British politics was that they had persuaded the UK Government to exit the European Union."Royal Family
When Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex announced they were leaving their royal duties, Afua Hirsch wrote a piece headlined "Black Britons know why Meghan wants out". In the piece she said "Meghan’s decision to join the family that is the symbolic heart of the establishment responsible for this troubled history was perplexing to many black British people". Douglas Murray claimed that the article was "not backed up by any facts".British beaches
In June 2020, a piece by Ceylan Yeğinsu claimed, that during a heatwave, British people have "cavorted by the hundreds in swamps". After The Times in the UK, called them out on the tone and factual error, the article was subsequently changed. In a correction, The New York Times stated "People flocked to parks, beaches and streams, not swamps".Putin-Trump kiss cartoon
After the Times tweeted a cartoon portraying Trump and Putin as a gay lovers, LGBT activist and Democratic Rep. Brian Sims said it's time to stop the homophobic jokes. American transgender activist Jeffrey Marsh said "to have a group that's as well-established as The New York Times personally attacking you feels horrendous."A spokesperson for The Times defended the animation.
Anti-Chinese sentiment
Chinese netizens reacted violently to quotation symbols which were put around "terrorist" by the New York Times when describing the 2014 Kunming attack. This was the same style used by most international publications as well as the US government.Outdated figures about the carbon output of China were used by the New York Times in a 2015 article.
Hiring of Sarah Jeong
In August 2018, The New York Times hired Sarah Jeong to join its editorial board as lead writer on technology, commencing in September. The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and that she regretted adopting this tactic. The Times stated that it had reviewed her social media history before hiring her, and that it did not condone the posts.Accusations of anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitic cartoons
On April 25, 2019, The New York Times international edition included a cartoon featuring U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump was shown wearing a kippah and Netanyahu was displayed as Trump's dog wearing a collar with the Star of David. The Israeli edition of The Times was published at the end of Passover. After criticism from public and religious figures, The Times admitted to using "anti-Semitic tropes".On April 29, The New York Times came under scrutiny again for publishing another anti-Semitic cartoon featuring Netanyahu.