MANHATTAN — The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a beneficial shareholder of The New York Times Company, has demanded an inspection of the company’s Board and Audit Committee records related to a May 11, 2026 column by Nicholas Kristof titled “The silence that meets the rape of Palestinians.” The demand, made under New York Business Law and common law shareholder rights, gives the company five days to comply or face legal action.
NCPPR seeks to investigate whether the company’s board and senior management breached fiduciary duties by exposing the company to “material legal, reputational and financial risks arising from the publication of factually unsupported content.” The inspection request specifically targets whether legal review protocols, source verification procedures, and corrections policies were followed or bypassed in the production of Kristof’s column.
The Kristof article alleged widespread sexual violence by Israeli prison guards against Palestinian detainees, including a claim that guards used dogs to commit rape. Following its publication, the Israeli government announced plans to pursue a defamation lawsuit against the company and Kristof. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was cited as an on-the-record source in the piece, stated that his remarks were misrepresented.
The National Jewish Advocacy Center (NJAC), which represents NCPPR in the matter, emphasized that the inspection is not aimed at challenging the company’s editorial viewpoint, which it acknowledged is protected by the First Amendment. NJAC also clarified that it is not seeking reporter notes, unpublished drafts, confidential source identities, or attorney work product.
“When a columnist's own quoted source publicly accuses the columnist of misrepresentation after publication, that is not a detail the company can wave away by noting the editors found no errors,” the National Jewish Advocacy Center said. The organization stated the purpose of the demand is to examine possible corporate mismanagement, inadequate oversight, and incomplete public discourse stemming from the column’s publication.