A shareholder of The New York Times is demanding a full inspection of The New York Times' Board and Audit Committee records, giving the outlet five days to respond or face court.
The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a beneficial shareholder of the NYT Company, is requesting an inspection of certain books and records following the controversial May 11, 2026, Nicholas Kristoff column titled 'The silence that meets the rape of Palestinians.'
The Kristof article claimed to report on widespread sexual violence by Israeli prison guards against Palestinian prisoners, including the allegation that Israeli prison guards used dogs to commit rape. Following publication, the Israeli government announced its intention to pursue a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and Nicholas Kristof.
NCPPR is represented by the National Jewish Advocacy Center (NJAC), and the request is made pursuant to New York Business Law and the common law of shareholders.
The purpose of the demand is to investigate whether the Company's board of directors and senior management have failed to uphold their fiduciary duties with regard to "material legal, reputational and financial risks arising from the publication of factually unsupported content."
Demand is meant to determine if legal programs were followed
This includes the design and operation of legal review programs, source verification programs, and corrections procedures, among others.
The purpose of the demand is also to determine whether these programs were followed or bypassed with respect to the Kristof article.
For example, following the publication, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was named as an on-the-record source, said that his statements were misrepresented.
"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," said NJAC.
It is worth noting that NJAC is not seeking reporter notes, unpublished drafts, confidential source identities, or attorney work. It also does not ask the NYT to justify its viewpoint (which is protected by the First Amendment). Instead, it seeks to investigate possible corporate mismanagement, inadequate oversight, and incomplete public discourse.