Journalism professors call for independent review of New York Times' Oct. 7 report
Dozens of American journalism professors have signed a letter calling for an independent review into a New York Times story that alleged Hamas militants committed mass sexual violence against Israelis on October 7.
The December 2023 story entitled “‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7,” relies largely on second-hand accounts of alleged rapes from sources whose credibility has come into question.
The New York Times published a story in March that video evidence undercuts the claim of an unnamed Israeli military paramedic cited in Screams Without Words. The paramedic claimed to have seen two partially clothed teenage girls at a house in Kibbutz Be’eri “who bore signs of sexual violence.” The Times cited a source from the kibbutz who flatly said that the “story is false.”
As well one of the authors of Screams Without Words, Anat Schwartz, is an Israeli filmmaker who’s been accused of bias based on her social media activity. This includes her liking a post that called for Gaza to be turned “into a slaughterhouse,” and reposting the debunked claim that Hamas fighters beheaded 40 babes on Oct. 7. It appears that Schwartz did not have any journalistic experience prior to her bylines in The Times in 2023. The Times has since cut ties with Schwartz, per a report from the Israeli news website Ynet.
On Monday, dozens of journalism professors from across the U.S. sent a letter to the New York Times urging the newspaper to “immediately commission” a group of experts to conduct an independent review to answer questions surrounding how the story was made.
The academics said the independent review is especially necessary given Israel’s monthslong bombardment of the Gaza Strip in response to Oct. 7, which has killed at least 34,000 people and injured over 77,000.
“The impact of The New York Times story is impossible to fathom,” the letter states. “This is wartime and in the minds of many people, The Times’ story fueled the fire at a pivotal moment when there might have been an opportunity to contain it before, as the International Court of Justice has ruled, the situation devolved into the ‘plausible’ realm of genocide. Considering these grave circumstances, we believe that The Times must waste no time in extending an invitation for an independent review.”
The professors said there is precedent for such a review, as New York Times staff writer Jayson Blair resigned in 2003 amid claims of fabrication and plagiarism.
The professors called for The Times to clarify its stance on vetting freelancers. They noted that NYT staff reporter Rick Bragg resigned in 2003 for his overreliance on a freelance journalist. After Bragg’s resignation, The Times released a statement that “non-staffers should be used to supplement a correspondent’s core reporting; they should not be used to substitute for that reporting.”
A report from The Intercept about Screams Without Words claimed that Schwartz and Adam Sella (another freelancer who is reportedly the nephew of Schwartz’s partner) were responsible for the ground reporting while Jeffrey Gettleman, the only NYT staff reporter included in the story’s byline, “focused on the framing and writing” of the story.
The professors said they were “alarmed” by recent comments made by Gettleman.
During an onstage conversation with Sheryl Sandberg, the former COO of Meta, Gettleman said of the Screams Without Words: “I don't want to even use the word evidence because evidence is almost like the legal term that suggests you're trying to prove an allegation or prove a case in court.” This is despite the fact that Screams Without Words has the word “evidence” in its sub headline and that the story says The Times’ investigation establishes “that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence” perpetuated by Hamas on Oct. 7.
The professors concluded the letter by stating that while the damage done to Palestinians is irreversible, the New York Times can still undo at least some of the damage to its reputation by welcoming an independent investigation.
“[I]f an investigation does find remarkable errors or negligence in the way the newsroom operated, nothing that The Times would do in response could ever reverse the damage done to Palestine and to Palestinians but The Times could still reverse some of the damage it has done to itself with its silence,” the letter states. “Doing nothing, however, and allowing a cloud of doubt to hang over this historically consequential story will ensure that all the journalism that The New York Times produces in the course of this conflict will remain under a dark shadow.”