On Oct. 27, over 300 writers, public intellectuals, and scholars pledged to withhold contributions from The New York Times’ opinion section. In a joint statement, they cited the papers’ “anti-Palestinian bias” as the primary cause for their collective divestment of labor.
This pledge was cosigned by 150 writers who previously contributed to The New York Times, including notable figures such as Sally Rooney, Greta Thunberg, Rima Hassan, Rupi Kaur, and Kaveh Akbar.
The writers’ collective pledge argues that the withholding of labor will “mount an effective challenge to the hegemonic authority that the Times has long used to launder the U.S. and Israel’s lies.”
With a significant portion of past talent refusing to write in the “Op-Ed” section of the Times, the paper is being forced to reflect on the importance of this section within its publication. If the paper’s goal is to share a diverse collection of opinions, this pledge creates a significant challenge in reaching that goal.
What is an Op-Ed?
The New York Times coined the term “Op-Ed” in 1970, associating the brand with opinion-style essayists. However, in 2021, they re-labeled this section as “Guest Essayist” after receiving criticism for the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (Rep. Ark) piece in June 2020, where he advocated for the military to invade U.S. Cities.
Many readers attributed Cotton’s opinion to the Times itself. By changing the name from “Op-Ed” to “Guest Essayist,” the Times hoped to grant itself greater deniability for future controversial opinion pieces.
This desire for non-partisan independence is described as “dangerous” by the Palestinian Solidarity Group: Writers Against the War On Gaza (WAWOG), “because it hides what it really is: a publication that exists to serve the interests of U.S. Imperialism.”
WAWOG is part of the coalition of Palestinian solidarity groups that contributed to the pledge against the Times. Other groups in this coalition include the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) group and the Palestinian Feminist Collective (PFC).
This coalition has condemned the “paper’s decades-long practice of acting as a bullhorn for the Israeli government and military,” making three demands in return for their labor.
The First Demand
The writers’ first demand is that “the Newsroom must conduct a review of anti-Palestinian bias and produce new editorial standards for Palestinian coverage.”
This demand specifies that in order for the Times to correct years of biased coverage, it must review and revise its “style guide, methods of sourcing and citing, and its hiring practices.”
They specifically want to ensure the writers covering the Israeli war haven’t served in the Israeli Occupational Service. This would be done by barring those individuals from covering the war altogether.
The Second Demand
The second demand is that “the newsroom must retract the widely debunked investigation ‘Scream Without Words.’” This piece was written by Jeffrey Gettleman alongside Anat Schwartz, who worked in IOF’s intelligence division and works for the Israeli State Media, and Adam Sella, Schwartz’s nephew, who had never reported for the Times previously.
This piece was framed as a documentation of systemic sexual violence against Israeli women by Hamas during the Oct. 7 attacks. However, this reportage immediately garnered widespread criticism over its methodology, which was based on witness testimony.
Days after its release, the family of the key victim, Gal Abdush, described as “The woman in the black dress” by the Times, claimed the investigators had manipulated their testimony.
Abdush’s sister told reporters their family agreed to an interview on the pretense that it was to “write a report in memory of Gal… If we knew that the title would be about rape and butchery, we’d have never accepted that.”
After this reportage, Intercept began sifting through the evidence of the piece and found that the evidence was unverified. The allegations of sexual assault were found to be unsubstantiated, while testimony by a Zaka Paramedic was proven false from video evidence.
The New York Times has yet to issue a retraction or correction, despite the “Screams Without Words” piece’s failure to meet its own fact-checking standards.
The Third Demand
The third demand is that “the Editorial Board must call for a U.S. arms embargo on Israel.” This is a demand that would force the Times to stand apart from the U.S. government’s bipartisan agenda to arm Israel.
A decision that they don’t take lightly, as it took them over a year to call for a ceasefire in the region. The writers cite the date the editorial board called for the ceasefire, January 2025, as evidence of the Times’ moral ambivalence towards the ongoing genocide of Palestinians.
Although a ceasefire deal has been reached, the pledge argues that “Israel has proven that a ceasefire deal is insufficient to stop its destruction of Gaza. Only an arms embargo can deliver a lasting ceasefire.”
Therefore, the writers are now expecting a new statement by the Editorial Board to address the ongoing humanitarian concerns within the region.
How Can the Times Respond?
The listed demands by these writers aren’t impossible, as the Times has historically carried out similar demands. They updated their style guide in 1987 after receiving internal and external pressure to do so. This allowed writers to use the word “gay” rather than “homosexuals” in their pieces, providing writers the ability to use less biased language when covering the AIDS crisis.
The Times also issued retractions regarding the Iraq war. The paper apologized for its biased commentary that perpetuated unverified claims during the war. Their public editor acknowledged the responsibility of the Times for these pieces, labeling these issues as “institutional,” rather than “individual.”
The Times has previously called for a limitation of arms sales during other humanitarian crises. They specifically called for sanctions during the South African Apartheid on Aug. 15, 1986. In this piece by the Editorial Board, they claimed it was necessary to impose sanctions to send “Pretoria an unmistakable economic message.”
These three demands have been cosigned by over 300 writers, public intellectuals, and scholars. They aren’t impossible or unreasonable, as the Times has capitulated to similar requests in the past. The pledge also isn’t limited to just those 300 it began with, as it calls for more writers to join.
This pledge will affect the reputation of the opinion section, as well as the audience’s trust in the Times. The statement argues that the “media is part of the machinery of war, producing the impunity and bigotry that enables and sustains it.”
Given the power the Times has in influencing the general public’s opinion, it must be held accountable by those who’ve written for it in the past.
Want to see more HCFSU? Be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and Pinterest!