Tipsheet

Top NYT Editor Says He Probably Wouldn't Have Run the Kristof Rape Dog Column

Amy Curtis
Amy Curtis  |  July 09, 2026 1:30 PM

It seems like an eternity ago, but less than two months ago, the New York Times ran an op-ed column by Nicholas Kristof that accused Israel of using dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners. Most sane people scoffed at the outlandish accusations and said Kristof and the NYT were engaged in even more blood libel against Israel.

The timing of the article just happened to be right before a massive and far more credible report about the sexual atrocities committed by Hamas was released. The NYT knew about that report, too, because they refused to publish it. Instead, they ran Kristof's story so they could bury the horrific sexual abuse Israelis endured.

Now a top NYT editor is distancing himself from that column, saying he wouldn't have run it.

Here's more:

The highest-ranking news editor at the New York Times, executive editor Joe Kahn, is publicly distancing himself and the paper's 2,200-person newsroom from a May 11 Times opinion column by Nicholas Kristof that alleged widespread sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners by Israeli authorities. Kahn said the piece "wasn't edited by the newsroom" and, when asked whether the news division would have published the same article, replied, "No, we wouldn't have done that exact piece."

Kristof's column drew sharp condemnation from the Israeli government, which called it "Hamas propaganda," "fabricated," and a "baseless blood libel." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened legal action, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations formally rebuked the piece. Critics also challenged the column's reliance on anonymous witnesses and sources alleged to have ties to Hamas, while the Times Opinion section has continued to defend its reporting and fact-checking process.

Once again, is this an op-ed or a report? The NYT doesn't seem willing to say one way or the other, calling Kristof's piece 'opinion journalism' in a defense of his work.

What they wanted is the credibility of a report, but to hide behind it being an opinion piece to shield from the blowback. As many critics pointed out, the report relied on anonymous witnesses or those with ties to Hamas.

Instead of just owning up, issuing a retraction, and apologizing, the NYT Communications X account decided to say Kahn's comments were taken out of context.

The entire post reads (emphasis added):

This is inaccurate and taken out of context. Here’s the full quote Joe Kahn gave when asked if Nick Kristof’s column would have run in the news report: 

“I mean it’s a little bit of a hypothetical. Nick, as you know, is an opinion columnist. He’s also a very accomplished New York Times foreign correspondent who made his name in various overseas assignments, in China, around the world, reporting out of Africa, Japan. He’s a very accomplished journalist. In his opinion column he also does a lot of original reporting, on the road. So Nick has his own brand and area of expertise. And that piece was edited by our opinion section, it wasn’t edited by our newsroom. So it’s distinct but it’s not a categorical difference.

It’s impossible to say whether we would have done the identical piece. We probably wouldn’t have because it’s not — you know Nick has a particular focus on human rights and war and it is kind of part of his area of focus as a columnist. So to say, ‘would we have done that exact piece?’ No, we wouldn’t have done that exact piece. But we have reported very similarly on abuses in the Israeli prison system.

We have also reported on sexual abuses by Hamas against Israeli prisoners or against Israelis during the October 7 attack. So we’ve reported on sexual abuse on both sides of that, and every time we do it excites a lot of controversy. Nick’s piece did as well. This one happened to be done by the Opinion section, by him as a columnist.

You know, I have confidence in my opinion colleagues that they edit with rigor.”

So what was reported is accurate. Kahn said he would not have done that exact piece.

We all know why.

They are going to keep defending the indefensible.