A growing coalition of law firms representing a New York Times Company shareholder is demanding the publisher turn over its “books and records” for an investigation “into whether the company’s board has abdicated its basic oversight duties” following a string of controversial Times reports that sought to discredit Israel or support anti-Israel Democratic politicians such as Graham Platner, according to a demand letter obtained exclusively by the Washington Free Beacon.
If the Times does not produce the materials by July 21, a lawsuit will be filed in the New York County Supreme Court, according to a letter sent Tuesday by a coalition of lawyers representing the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a nonpartisan think-tank and beneficial Times shareholder. It is the second time that lawyers from the National Jewish Advocacy Center (NJAC)—and now several other firms who recently joined the effort—have demanded access to the news organization’s internal data and communications, accusing it of rampant anti-Israel bias and advocacy on behalf of prominent anti-Israel Democratic politicians like Platner—who withdrew in disgrace last week from Maine’s Senate race—as well as New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani.
The stockholders, the letter says, aim “to investigate whether the [Times] Board is engaging in any form of oversight to ensure that the New York Times remains a news reporting agency worth anything to its stockholders, rather than becoming viewed by the public as a simple propaganda arm that selects its articles and reporting in a way that ignores truth in favor of pushing false narratives.”
The prospective lawsuit could provide a new avenue for accountability at the Times, which has been largely dismissive of a rash of criticism over recent reporting on Israel and how it handled its investigation of Platner’s alleged sexual misconduct. The paper has offered competing and often contradictory defenses for these articles, leading the shareholders to question if the Times board is flatly “ignoring company quality and compliance policies” that are meant to produce neutral, fact-based journalism. The inclusion of two new prominent law firms—Grant & Eisenhofer and Schall, Brown & Schwartz—on NJAC’s campaign suggests that the Times may face difficulty dismissing their fresh concerns, which extend past mere anti-Israel bias to now encompass velvet-gloved reporting on two high-profile, anti-Israel Democrats.
“A Board doing its job does not watch its company get caught, publicly and repeatedly, publishing material that violates the company’s own written standards, and say nothing,” the letter states. “The violations themselves are for the newsroom to answer; the Board’s attention to those violations, or its ignorance of them, is what NCPPR seeks to inspect.” To do so, lawyers are demanding the Times hand over scores of internal records related to its reporting on Israel and Platner, including any private discussions the Times board may have engaged in about the coverage.
NJAC’s initial May 29 letter came on the heels of a lurid and outlandish report, now widely discredited, from Times columnist Nicholas Kristof that accused Israel of raping two Palestinian “journalists” in separate incidents with a carrot and a dog. The NJAC raised concerns about the quality of the board’s oversight prior to the publication of the column, which relied heavily on a Hamas-linked organization for the dog rape allegation, according to multiple reports, including in the Free Beacon.
While the Times ignored the organization’s initial request, the addition of the two additional law firms alongside NJAC and the Schoen Law Firm will add extensive experience in suing major corporations, and David Schoen of the eponymous firm represented President Donald Trump during his first term.
“As we told the National Jewish Advocacy Center and National Center for Public Policy Research in response to an earlier demand letter, while positioned under corporate law, it is a clear attempt to chill First Amendment-protected journalism,” Danielle Rhoades Ha, a Times spokeswoman, told the Free Beacon.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary fact-checking,” said Steve Milloy, director of shareholder NCPPR’s Free Enterprise Project. “The Times did the former but not the latter. This puts the company and investors at unnecessary risk.”
The letter primarily centers on fresh concerns about the paper’s handling of its June 4 investigation into alleged sexual misconduct by Platner, a fierce opponent of Israel whose Senate race was considered a must-win if the Democrats are to reclaim the Senate in the 2026 midterms. The Times was heavily criticized for an approach that soft-pedaled serious allegations. Perhaps most notably, the article stated that it “could not corroborate” several instances of violence revealed by former Platner girlfriend Lyndsey Fifield, whom the article made clear was a conservative. The article also mentioned that Platner engaged in “reckless” and “unsettling” behavior with a second beau, Jenny Racicot. Platner survived the much-anticipated article—which critics called a “catch and kill” designed to inoculate him against serious allegations—and his campaign only collapsed after Racicot, a Democrat, told Politico that the Maine Democrat raped her.
The legal letter alleges that the Times‘s coverage “sanitized Mr. Platner,” a criticism echoed by pundits across the political spectrum in the wake of Politico‘s June 6 follow-up report.
“The Company’s refusal to report self-evidently newsworthy information about Mr. Platner followed a pattern of the Company downplaying or outright ignoring information, such as his Nazi tattoo and various prior statements indicating racism and disrespect for the United States government and members of the military that plainly is newsworthy when affecting any Senate candidate, regardless of party affiliation,” the letter states.
Like with Kristof’s report, the Times publicly defended its reporting on Platner, telling Newsweek that its story presented the accounts “according to our standards.” When Fifield publicly challenged that response, and provided evidence that Times reporters failed to fact-check information or follow up with women she connected to the Times to corroborate her assault allegations, the Times later told Mediaite that it only reported details “that were on the record and confirmable.”
“Those two assertions,” the lawyers wrote, “raise critical issues for stockholder inspection” and provide justification for shareholders “to examine whether the board has abdicated its duty to implement and oversee the performance of those standards in order to assure protection of the company.”
The letter goes on to detail additional instances in which the Times newsroom displayed anti-Israel bias.
It points to a March 4 story that highlighted 10 pro-Israel social media postings from recently ousted New York Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman’s wife, Corinne Levy Goldman. The Times framed those posts as potentially “hateful or insensitive.” Just two days later, the paper ran a similar—but much differently framed—piece about Rama Duwaji, Mamdani’s wife, after the Free Beacon reported that she celebrated Palestinian terrorists on social media. The Times‘s report on Duwaji’s social media activity was framed merely as support for the “Palestinian cause.”
The paper “covered both spouses but at no point treated them alike,” the lawyers wrote. “Mrs. Goldman’s likes were described as ‘hateful or insensitive’; Ms. Duwaji’s were framed as ‘Support for Palestinian Cause,’ in a headline the Company revised at least twice after publication.”
In an extraordinary breach of party etiquette, Mamdani successfully ousted Goldman in June’s Democratic primary by backing a challenger in a race that focused on Goldman’s support for Israel.
In addition to internal information on the Times board’s deliberations around these various articles, the lawyers are also demanding a litany of documents “sufficient to show what policies, if any, exist to ensure” that Times “editorial standards are applied uniformly without regard to the political affiliation of a story’s subject.”
Mark Goldfeder, NJAC’s CEO and director, said the request is “a routine shareholder demand.” However, “what is not routine is the mounting evidence that the Times may not be following its own standards.”
“This is not about whether the Times is pro-Israel or anti-Israel, and it is not a First Amendment issue,” Goldfeder made clear. “It is about corporate governance and whether the Board is ensuring that the Company follows the standards it has set for itself. The new information that has come to light over the last month should concern every shareholder who believed they were investing in a properly governed company, regardless of their ideology or politics. It has only strengthened the case, and we have brought together a formidable legal team prepared to see it through.”
Read the full article here
