HOW THE NEWSPAPER OF RECORD FLUNKED JOURNALISM 101
Editors Note: An earlier version of this piece appeared on the British publisher spiked-online.
By Cory Franklin
June 14th, 2026
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
This saying, generally attributed to American astronomer Carl Sagan, was coined long before he popularized it. Its current relevance relates to an extraordinary claim by Nicholas Kristof in a recent New York Times op-ed, in which he accused Israel of a systemic policy of using sexual violence against Palestinian prisoners. In the 3,750-word piece, Kristof alleges that a ‘Gaza journalist’ was raped by a dog that had been ‘coached’ for that purpose. He writes that a dog was summoned and with encouragement from a handler, the dog ‘mounted’ a prisoner. The prisoner ‘tried to dislodge the dog… but it penetrated him, while guards laughed and took photographs.
Note what is extraordinary is not that Israeli prison guards might have sexually abused some Palestinian prisoners. That is an unfortunate occurrence not uncommon to every nation, including those like Israel, of the “enlightened” West. This is inexcusable. Full stop.
But clearly, the extraordinary part of the op-ed is the claim that guard dogs were trained to rape prisoners. This is the journalistic equivalent of a five-alarm fire and all the alarm bells should have sounded for The New York Times editors. This is where extraordinary evidence is required – yet not a shred was provided.
For a claim to merit publication, extraordinary evidence has to meet two thresholds. First, is the claim plausible? Second, is the claim provable? If the claim is not plausible, it is not automatically untrue but should only be published if accompanied by absolute proof. No one would believe the moon is made of green cheese, and that should end the question – unless someone brings back an indisputable sample of green cheese from the moon’s surface. That’s proof of the implausible. But the case of the “rape dogs” goes beyond even the “green cheese” standard.
There is no evidence offered in the op-ed that dogs can be trained to rape men and no credible, documentable accounts of dogs being trained this way.
Alan Howe of The Australian asked a dog expert of 34 years, who explained that it basically failed the plausibility test, “Canine erection is a reflexive neuroendocrine response to female reproductive pheromones – it is not a voluntary behavior and cannot be trained or reliably triggered on command… the specific act alleged is not biologically plausible.”
Did no one at the New York Times wonder about this? This should be the first question any editor would ask – and who knows how many editors’ Kristof’s column passed through. We do know that in a separate statement the Times editors, still offering no evidence, doubled down on their support for the column – essentially an admission that including the alleged rape dogs in the piece was neither an oversight nor a mistake on their part. Was this incurious behavior deliberate? We have to ask, because for now neither Kristof nor his editors have tried to establish for Times readers that dogs can be taught this unnatural behavior.
After flunking the plausibility test, the opinion piece failed the provability test as well. Badly, in fact: no names, dates, locations, photographs or any tangible evidence that dog-rape ever happened. The only accounts are hearsay from anonymous prisoners – who have an obvious agenda – and no response from Israeli prison authorities, former guards or others who might offer conflicting views.
Kristof’s only independent corroboration was a nebulous quote he reached for from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who said pointedly after publication, “I did not validate these claims.” “There are also subtle errors including a claim that after the abuse Israel Defense Forces (IDF) guards took cigarette breaks – smoking is strictly forbidden in these compounds.
How did The New York Times so egregiously violate Journalism 101? It is such a transgression that in the unlikely event the allegation is subsequently proven true, it would still exonerate neither Kristof nor his editors. Again, the Times’ burden is to explain to readers how instructing canines to perform in this manner is possible. The failure to establish that plausibility at the get-go can never be undone.
And given such an explosive claim, where is the follow-up by other news outlets that have no compunction about publishing stories critical of the Israeli government? Where are The Guardian, The BBC, The Washington Post and others? Are they content to leave the Times marooned on a journalistic island? For that matter, why has the Times settled for issuing an anodyne statement of support for the story instead of sending reporters out to verify the allegations? Rather than perform journalism, the editors appear to be content to rest on their reputation as “the newspaper of record.”
What a record that has been of late, with mistakes that trend one way. It includes the front-page allegation that the IDF was responsible for the deadly explosion at the Al-Shifa Hospital complex in Gaza, later discovered to be the result of a misfired rocket by Islamic Jihad. Add to that the Pulitzer prize-winning front-page picture of an emaciated Palestinian child – his well-nourished brother mysteriously cropped from the photo – who actually turned out to be suffering from a chronic disease and not malnourishment. Both these sensational front-page stories in the newspaper of record were demonstrably false and all it took was some careful reporting to prove it – the kind of reporting The Times purports to do.
The most damning reproach of The Times ersatz journalism was by two practiced journalists, the aforementioned Alan Howe and Brendan O’Neill of Spiked. Howe wrote in The Australian, “If some deviant genius in the Israel Prison Service has trained dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners, that’s page one. It’s the splash. It’s not a throwaway line 2,500 words into a 3,750-word report.”
O’Neill followed this up by asking, “(Does) Kristof really believes the dog-rape story? Does the NYT itself believe it? If they do, why didn’t they lead with this truly extraordinary, epoch-shaking story? And if they don’t – if, like some of us, they recognize that pungent whiff of black propaganda – then why publish it at all? Why commit to print such a malignant smear with its uncanny echoes of medieval libels?”
Kristof and The Times have elided these issues with the claim “all rape should be condemned.” That goes without saying, but in this case, it is the quintessential example of a straw man. The universal condemnation of rape has nothing to do with slipshod journalism. Both Kristof and the Times certainly know better as to what they have done here, especially considering the timing of the piece, right before the release of a report on October 7 sexual violence by Hamas.
Do Kristof and The Times have an agenda here? Others can decide and speculate on antisemitism or as O’Neill alluded to, blood libel. But it not really necessary to invoke any nefarious agenda to realize some of the most seasoned journalists in the world have indulged in egregiously irresponsible reporting and editorial oversight. Times readers deserve better than Kristof and his editors delivered. Those readers deserve proof — or at least plausibility — of this extraordinary claim.
Sometimes even ordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A long-ago Chicago newspaper editor coined the first rule of journalism: if your mother tells you she loves you, check it out. (The actual quote is “If your mother tells you she loves you, kick her smartly in the shins and make her prove it.”) The first step in collecting extraordinary evidence would be ensuring the person who says his mother loves him is not an orphan.
-30-
Dr. Cory Franklin
Cory Franklin, physician and writer, is a frequent contributor to johnkassnews.com. Director of Medical Intensive Care at Cook County (Illinois) Hospital for 25 years, before retiring he wrote over 80 medical articles, chapters, abstracts, and correspondences in books and professional journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA. In 1999, he was awarded the Shubin-Weil Award, one of only fifty people ever honored as a national role model for the practice and teaching of intensive care medicine.
Since retirement, Dr. Franklin has been a contributor to the Chicago Tribune op-ed page. His work has been published in the New York Times, New York Post, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times and excerpted in the New York Review of Books. Internationally, his work has appeared internationally in Spiked, The Guardian and The Jerusalem Post. For nine years he hosted a weekly audio podcast, Rememberingthepassed, which discusses the obituaries of notable people who have died recently. His 2015 book “Cook County ICU: 30 Years Of Unforgettable Patients and Odd Cases” was a medical history best-seller. In 2024, he co-authored The COVID Diaries: Anatomy of a Contagion As it Happened.
In 1993, he worked as a technical advisor to Harrison Ford and was a role model for the physician character Ford played in the film, The Fugitive.
Comments 27
Good morning. John for years we knew that the New York Times was a Left-Wing Newspaper and did not tell the truth. Most of us knew it the problem is many did believe their lying and believed them. So sad what has happened to this once great Country. Very sad.
When Abe Rosenthal retired, the paper was finished as a credible publication.
Thanks Doc for pinch hitting while the big guy is away for family. I question if there is a hidden agenda by the NYT involved here. Kind of like I do when reading about the destruction of Illinois and her middle class citizens. Who benefits? What’s the end game?
Happy Sunday all.
“The first step in collecting extraordinary evidence would be ensuring the person who says his mother loves him is not an orphan.” I love that line!
Most journalists, except for a few lawyers and fewer ex-military and MDs, are generalists who know a little about a lot of things and a lot about nothing except how to be a journalist and please their editors. When their [often low] level of personalized knowledge is exhausted, they revert to a familiar narrative or trust an ‘expert’. How many ‘expert’ commentators on Middle Eastern affairs can’t speak Arabic? or Farsi? or Hebrew? or Turkish? or Kurdish?
To quote Kipling … it’s amazing how the ordinary lie fools the extraordinary intellect. Kristof, who I understand does understand Arabic, included an anecdote that fit his narrative, accuracy was unimportant to him, or his editors. Typical of the NYT!
Thank you Corey for a very readable analysis of another “Big Lie” perpetrated by the American Left upon the American populace. When they go low, they go lie, and when they go lie, they go big. As been stated “when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it.”
Proof, we don’t need no stinkin’ proof.
Again, thank you.
The mid terms are fast approaching. The NYT, along with the rest of MSM, is amping up the efforts to reach voters. Too many people are easily influenced by headlines, never questioning authenticity.
They run with a fake dog rape story but ignore the rape as policy of the Hamas savages who believe their religion allows them to rape infidels and war captives. They are also permitted to take slaves. They are doing so right now.
This is who the left embraces.
DemoncRats are traitors, same as they were in 1861. They’ve gone from slavers, to Confederates, to Klansmen, and now communist. A party with a history of treason and tyranny.
Yes! And from a guy who obviously trusts histories written by these same journalists. I mean your spot on, Karl Marx loved Lincoln and the Confederate Constitution was a model for him.
Yeah, that’s it
Another valuable commentary by Dr. Franklin. Thanks . . . though the NYT subject was a leftist fairy tale so gross that it was difficult to read before breakfast.
In 2008 when John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee, The New York Times quickly sent five reporters to Alaska to see how much dirt there could dig up on her. Really — five. Just guessing, but that’s probably five more reporters than they sent to California in 2020 to investigate the intellectual fitness (if any) of vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris.
As a college student at Vassar, I read The New York Times daily, aware it always supported Democrats and had a liberal perspective, but regarding it as journalistically very serious, the famous Paper Of Record. In the years since, it’s gradually devolved to a “blue sheet” in Cheltenham font.
If you don’t subscribe to it, there’s an economical trick to learn exactly what’s being pushed on its editorial page. Just look at the headlines on the front page.
1. It’s pure antisemitism!
2. Both sides misuse the media. Both sides lie in their respective media.
3. As you found how dogs ‘actually work’ it was based on science! Right wing
nut MDs promoted ivermectin for the covid viral infection. Science reveals the drug acts on nervous system of the parasite, of which a virus doesn’t have. Was that covered in press. No! Why?
4. Recent New England Journal of Medicine published 2 significant findings recently. First, 90% of our generic drugs imported are contaminated! Any news on this in our media? Nope. Second, watchful waiting with low grade prostate cancer doesn’t work. Men died by not having surgery to remove cancer. Again no media coverage. Why?
They don’t care about the truth Doc. Sadly, the same folks who can see lies from the camp they’ve not support, blindly accept lies from their “team”.
As you shown, and as Kass has said repeatedly, it’s not just what is said or reported, equally important is what is not said or reported.
We are lied to daily, the cruelty of the ruling class is breathtaking.
Oh, and any nation that would attack an American Navy vessel as the Liberty, steal our nuclear and other secrets and sell them to the Soviets, and bog us down into a catastrophe in Iran, is not our friend.
It’s almost like we work for them.
Yet another example of why I haven’t watched the “news” in over ten years. I find it insulting to watch a talking head, reading a teleprompter, who may have never had an original thought, trying their best to convince me how to think. The NYT is nothing more than that, and this “dog rape” nonsense is proof of that. Pathetic
A Republican’s claim is most often dismissively reported as “without evidence” or prejudged as “falsely claimed”.
Trump had more patience for Welker than I would have.
The first whiff of unbelievability is the article is in the NYT.
NYT should stick to local news like man bites dog, the weather and sports.
It has become a useless newspaper.
The Kristof story is a good reminder of the NYT motto: all the bees that’s print to fit. The tale, when reported to Kristof et al fit their predispositions, so they didn’t bother to question it.
“bees” should read “news”. Sorry I didn’t proofread it.
Silly me.
I thought the right term you intended was ‘BS’.
Flunked Journalism is a very kind assessment Dr. Franklin. Thank you.
All this makes no sense to me. Israel is the SINGULAR United States ally. What is with the Times, the Ivy League save for the fact that they have always been control freaks as can be seen by the lengths they go to now, as well as the 19th century to lie, mislead, intimidate and revise.
Only an extraordinary A- hole with a capital A could drag mans best friend into a political diatribe. Dogs can be trained to do many things, most actions beneficial to people. Raping is not one. Animal rights people should be in front of that rag with signs demanding this idiots firing. This is how low the print media has sunk. Garbage. Pure garbage…
Yes, my thoughts exactly! Why do people read this rag? Anyone with any modicum of common sense knows that a dog cannot do that; however I wouldn’t put it past a radical Islamist to rape an innocent animal. Disgusting. Where is PETA when you need them?
I believe the NYT leads the way in its reporters injecting their patented “… he said, without providing evidence…” to quotes from people they don’t *like*. It only follows logic that they would never in a million years apply this dishonest pseudo-litmus test to one of their own. It’s the “dog whistle” to their readers on who is to be believed and who must not be believed, without ever committing one negative word about those they don’t *like*. Thus, “no bias here!!”. How clever…
The NY Times has a proud history of left wing distortion. Look no further than the 1932 Pulitzer Prize awarded to Walter Duranty who reported on the paradise on earth known as the Soviet Union and the brilliant leadership of Uncle Joe – the butcher Joseph Stalin. Nothing really new here. Just more of the same left wing commie bullshit.
“ HOW THE NEWSPAPER OF RECORD FLUNKED JOURNALISM 101” – excellent article, as usual.
But it’s the title that bothers me – why do you think you need to repeat yourself?
I agree with you about the NYT. Trump accurately pinned the “failing NYT” moniker on them ten years ago.
Now the NY Post? Pure truth all the time baby! They never lie and Miranda Devine is definitely not a shill for Trump, the Republicans, and the military.
VDH says the Iran “war” is great for Trump and for the USA too. More truth.
It’s all garbage. They’re all paid to say these things.
IDF does enough sketchy, even cruel things that you don’t have to lie. Same for Trump.
The truth will set us free.
Robert: The NY Post has never claimed the mantle of the “newspaper of record.” And yes the IDF likely does enough sketchy, even cruel things, but that is not the issue here. The issue discussed in Dr. Franklin’s post is the likely high profile falsehood perpetuated by the “newspaper of record.” Deflecting to the IDF rather addressing the specific claims in Dr Franklin’s post – other than your general statement regarding the general quality (or lack thereof) of NY Times journalism – is a sterling example of the bailey-motte fallacy.
I learned something new Bruce, thanks. Yes NYT is garbage. Okay? It’s just that we are propagandized to the hilt. If you can’t see that then you are not living in reality.
We’ve been conned into a false binary. A and B, which are both onerous.
I’m in a word limit here.
More than one thing can be true.
Yes, I do drift off topic at times.
And yes, while the Post does not claim to be the “Paper of Record”, it is every bit as much a rag as the “Failing” NYT.
Remember, my team is better than your team. My oligarch is better than your oligarch. My Jesus is better than your Jesus.
All the better to keep us divided, in silos, and arguing.
I had to come back Bruce. The baby that was born in a barn in Bethlehem to the carpenter and his wife, who were turned away from the inn. He wants us to kill in a “just war”?
Upon the bombing of Iran, including the girls school, which appears to have been “double tapped”, they hit the kids, then wait a half hour to hit the parents and first responders, all by accident, mind you.
VDH defends bombing in Iran with Obama did this, Clinton did that…. It doesn’t make it okay Bruce.
Just war? If it wasn’t so sad, I’d laugh.
The cruelty, the carnage, the hate, it’s breathtaking.
It’s hard to parse the truth from all the spin, lies, and deceit.
Trump just said you don’t have to blow up an entire apartment building to get one guy.
Even he sees it.
He says maybe Syria should fight Hezbollah.
The murderer who was an Al Queda leader, who changed his name and put a suit on, may be less cruel than the IDF?
I can’t keep the terrorist straight without a scorecard.
What kind of 25 cent fallacy is that?