NYT shareholder demands records over Kristof column on Palestinian detainees

Lead

A shareholder of The New York Times Company has formally demanded access to records from the company’s Board of Directors and Audit Committee, following the publication of a controversial column by opinion writer Nicholas Kristof. The demand, filed by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) and represented by the National Jewish Advocacy Center (NJAC), gives The New York Times five days to respond or face potential court action.

The request concerns Kristof’s May 11 column titled “The silence that meets the rape of Palestinians,” which alleged widespread sexual violence by Israeli prison guards against Palestinian detainees, including the use of dogs in rape. The column triggered immediate criticism in Israel and from Jewish organizations, and Israel’s government announced it would pursue a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and Kristof.

Coverage comparison

Both reports from the Jerusalem Post, which are the only sources currently available on this matter, agree on the core facts. They confirm that the shareholder demand was made by NCPPR, a beneficial shareholder of The New York Times Company, and that NJAC is handling the request. The demand seeks inspection of materials related to legal review programs, source verification, corrections procedures, and editorial oversight, both before and after the column’s publication.

The two reports differ slightly in emphasis. One presents the demand in a largely neutral, factual manner, quoting directly from NJAC’s filing. The other adopts a more critical tone, describing the column as “reckless” and emphasizing the “historic weight” of the allegations. This contrast suggests that while the underlying facts are consistent, the framing of the controversy may reflect editorial leanings.

Key claims

• Shareholder demand: NCPPR, a beneficial shareholder of The New York Times Company, has demanded inspection of board and audit committee records, pursuant to New York Business Law and common law. The demand is not seeking Kristof’s unpublished notes, drafts, confidential source identities, or attorney work product.
• Purpose of the demand: The stated purpose is to determine whether the company’s leadership properly handled “material legal, reputational and financial risks” arising from the publication of what NCPPR describes as “factually unsupported content.”
• Column contents: Kristof’s column claimed to report on widespread sexual violence by Israeli prison guards against Palestinian prisoners, including the specific allegation that guards used dogs to commit rape.
• Israeli reaction: Both reports state that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar instructed Israeli officials to initiate legal action against The New York Times, calling the column defamatory. This claim appears in only one of the two reports, but it is consistent with other public statements reported by Reuters.
• Olmert’s response: Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was cited in the column, said his remarks were misrepresented. This was reported by both sources.
• Legal viability: One report notes that media-law experts have questioned whether a defamation lawsuit would succeed under US defamation law. This claim is carried by a single outlet and has not been independently verified.

Perspectives

The shareholder demand represents a novel attempt to use corporate governance tools to challenge editorial content. NCPPR and NJAC argue that the column exposed The New York Times to material legal and financial risk, and that shareholders have a right to know whether the board and audit committee fulfilled their oversight duties.

Israeli officials, including the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, have characterized the column as defamatory and have taken initial steps toward legal action. Their response reflects broader concerns in Israel about global media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the treatment of detainees.

The New York Times has defended the column, and media-law experts cited in one report suggest that US defamation standards, particularly the high bar for public figures, may make a successful lawsuit difficult.

The controversy also highlights tensions around reporting on sensitive issues involving national security and human rights, with critics accusing the Times of failing to verify allegations, while supporters argue the column drew attention to credible reports of abuse.