If you thought The New York Times (NYT) was going to issue a mea culpa over the despicable Nick Kristof op-ed that accused Israeli soldiers of training dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners, you'd be sorely mistaken. The NYT defended the piece of 'opinion journalism' last week and now they've published a response to readers' and critics' questions.
But instead of owning up to the shoddy 'journalism' behind the false claims, they continue to defend the work.
The NYT just published a lengthy response to "our questions" about Kristof's column. Think they owned up to their mistakes? Quite the opposite.
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 22, 2026
Here are just SOME of the ways this response by Kristof and @katiekings is disgusting.
And yes, they double down on the dog rape🧵 https://t.co/4qxxsS8zpu pic.twitter.com/LWTBYNY6pS
They start by blaming the readers.
Not only do they double down on their "reporting," they place the onus on the readers themselves, stating that they "overlook" evidence of sexual violence.
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 22, 2026
Criticizing your own readers in a column is always a good look 👏 pic.twitter.com/PPFczWQjWW
"Critics who focus on the backgrounds of specific sources often overlook the overwhelming volume and consistency of such accounts. Nick's column, ultimately, was a call to action, urging those in power to condemn sexual violence in all forms," the NYT wrote.
Once again, this doesn't hold up under most basic scrutiny. If this writer were to get 1,000 people to say Nick Kristof eats puppies, does anyone think the NYT would simply agree that the 'overwhelming volume and consistency' of those stories meant the accusation was true?
Hamas operatives, pro-Palestine activists, and the anti-Israel crowd will lie to smear Israel. Their word is worth less than the paper it's written on.
Meanwhile, the NYT itself refused to publish an actual documented and sourced report on the use of sexual violence by Hamas.
They have no interest in condemning sexual violence, especially when that sexual violence is targeted at Jews and other enemies of Hamas.
This is gaslighting to the extreme. Two key testimonies come from Sami al-Sai and Issa Amro. The former praised Oct 7 and is accused by the PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY of Hamas ties. The latter is on record calling for intifada and accusing Israel of wanting to drink Palestinian blood pic.twitter.com/5oV5lOvrWc
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 22, 2026
These sources are not reliable. Every time President Trump utters anything, the NYT and others add ' ... without evidence' to his remarks. Notice how they take the word of known October 7 sympathizers as Gospel truth, however.
And here, Kristof once again not-so-implicitly accuses his readers and critics of being rape-denying bigots pic.twitter.com/pYriTqbax8
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 22, 2026
Dog rape didn't happen. We're right to deny it.
And they double down on the dog-rape claims.
Here it is: doubling down on dog rape.
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 22, 2026
This response is as completely devoid of evidence as @NickKristof's actual column. And once again, he drastically misrepresents the peer-reviewed medical literature on the matter.
See here for more: https://t.co/kQIKuvYIyw pic.twitter.com/EnmIp9wpsp
Someone needs to tell the NYT that saying the same thing over and over again doesn't magically make it true.
This is the most morally outrageous part — it subtly paints the picture that just as the October 7th massacre and rape shouldn't be doubted, neither should Palestinian claims of dog rape. To compare the two is so egregious it's almost beyond words.
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 22, 2026
This is peak moral inversion. pic.twitter.com/VbHSJQU8mn
That's exactly why the NYT is doing this. They had advanced notice of the report of Hamas atrocities, and they wanted to get ahead of it — and minimize it — by cooking up this bull story about Israel training dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners.
Kristof says his piece was being edited and fact-checked for weeks.
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 22, 2026
This therefore implicates @katiekings and her entire team of fact-checkers. There needs to be a reckoning at the Times ASAP. pic.twitter.com/3YkhzByVB5
This piece was not fact-checked.
Believe it or not, I went easy on them.
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 22, 2026
This response proves the Times has learned nothing from this saga and will continue utterly tarnishing the integrity of their own profession.
Do not let up the pressure. Demand accountability.
The NYT is facing a massive lawsuit from Israel over these claims. Discovery should be very enlightening, if it even gets that far. Watch how quickly the NYT tries to settle. And Fischberger thinks this will hurt the NYT in the lawsuit.
Not only does the NYT response fall woefully short — it actually strengthens Israel's legal case against it.
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 22, 2026
1. Kristof minimizes Euro-Med's chairman as someone whose views "can't be taken lightly" — while failing to note a documented record that includes an Israeli… https://t.co/KxfmA67HpS
There are several claims Fischberger lays out, but a notable one is that former PM Olmert "accused Kristof of misrepresenting his words in the original column. The Times response doesn't mention him once."
Let’s see the fact check files and notes. It’s not hard to do If they exist in that detail. I’ve been thoroughly fact checked for science and medicine pieces. The annotation and questions and source confirmation are extraordinarily detailed and precise.
— Gillian (Jill) Neimark (@jillneimark) May 22, 2026
If it was 'fact-checked' for weeks, there will be documentation. Emails, text messages, notes. Let's see them.
I thought their whole argument rested on it being an opinion piece not fact checked journalism, now they're saying it was fact checked? I think it didn't pass fact checking and that's why it ran as an opinion.
— Macro Demarco 🇺🇸 (@Mononokeynes) May 22, 2026
They want it both ways. They want it to be journalism so it carries weight, but because it's rightfully under scrutiny, they also want it to be an op-ed to protect them from lawsuits. They're now facing one anyway, and they keep handing Israel more ammo in that lawsuit.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member