All the ads that are fit to print.
The New York Times declined to publish an advertisement from the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) that referred to Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide.” The AFSC announced the NYT’s rejection of its ad on Jan. 8.
The influential paper, whose tagline is All the News That’s Fit to Print, defended its decision, asserting that the ad’s language violated its standards for advocacy advertising, which require precision and avoid sensationalism.
Renowned voices, including Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, have criticized the paper for its perceived bias in reporting on Gaza. Hedges and others have accused the paper of presenting a narrative that disproportionately reflects Israeli perspectives while marginalizing Palestinian suffering. Addressing this criticism, the paper ran some stories that acknowledged the humanitarian crisis in Palestine, though critics argue these portrayals lack sufficient compassion or urgency. The paper refers to the genocide as “war,” brought on by Hamas.
The New York Times Company is majority owned by the Sulzberger family, which has Jewish heritage. This ownership structure has drawn scrutiny in the context of NYT’s Gaza coverage.
This is not the first time NYT has accepted or rejected ads based on its trickled-down convictions.
In line with its pro-Israel policy, the paper published a full-page ad in May 2021 accusing models Gigi and Bella Hadid, who are half-Palestinian, and singer Dua Lipa, who is Muslim, of antisemitism. All three celebrities have taken anti-genocide stance against Israel’s shocking and inhumane war crimes. The ad was sponsored by the World Values Network, led by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.
Similarly, reflecting its strong support for Israel, NYT ran an ad in 2019 that accused members of the U.S. Congress of supporting antisemitism. Facing heat, the paper said the ad was run in order to uphold free speech. The ad was placed by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which is known for its controversial anti-Islamic advertising campaigns.
NYT’s stance on what’s fit to print continues to raise questions about its commitment to journalistic integrity and humanitarian values, appearing to willingly polarize public discourse.