You probably heard the buzz. The New York Times, in its infinite wisdom, decided to let Nicholas Kristof—its resident paternalistic center-left tourist—wander into the opinion pages this week to write about the sexual torture of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

And look, full disclosure: the piece is, in its raw content, damning. Kristof documents a horrifying pattern of abuse that deserves condemnation. But if you think this is a turning point for the Gray Lady, you haven’t been paying attention for the last two years. This isn’t journalism. It’s a restoration project. It’s the Times trying to sandblast the blood off its own hands while charging you for a subscription.

The Gore S’more

Here is the Collateral Damage Rule of Mainstream Genocide Coverage: They will tell you the truth, but only if they can wrap it in two layers of bullshit.

Kristof does this masterfully. He spends paragraphs documenting systematic rape—including the dog allegations, which we now understand are medically plausible and supported by multiple survivor testimonies. But then, like a priest hedging his bets before a mob boss, he bookends the whole thing with the Times’ favorite Zio-lore: the “Hamas rape” narrative of October 7th.

Let’s be clear-eyed about this. The Times published a series of free-of-evidence “reports”—framed as news, not opinion—that claimed to document systematic sexual violence by Hamas. When Israel is the accused? It’s an opinion column. When Palestinians are the accused? It’s front-page news. As the group Writers Against the War on Gaza noted, the Times has spent this entire war acting as a “mouthpiece for American imperialism,” advising its own reporters to avoid words like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.”

Months ago, a group of surgeons who volunteered in Gaza gave horrifying testimony. Dr. Mark Perlmutter, an American surgeon, told the press—and later the courts—that he and the rest of the group witnessed a clear pattern of Palestinian children presenting to the ER with sniper shots to the head.

Where was that published? If you said “the opinion section” or ignored entirely, give yourself a cigar. The Times didn’t treat that as a news flash. Because the narrative didn’t have a “both sides” hook.

But this Kristof piece? It’s designed to do two things:

1. Restore credibility with the anti-war left.
2. Whitewash the paper’s history of aiding and abetting ethnic cleansing.

The Times is still facing a lawsuit from Israel over this very piece, which they’ve labeled a “blood libel.” And while I have zero sympathy for Bibi Netanyahu’s legal intimidation tactics—the lawsuit is likely a sham to stifle speech—the dance is instructive. The Times gets to play the martyr for press freedom while also laundering propaganda.

The Boycott We Actually Need

Here is the hardest truth for the anti-imperialist crowd to swallow: Sharing this article as a “win” for Palestine makes you look like an opportunist.

You cannot spend six months screaming “Boycott the Times!” only to turn around and post a gift link to Kristof because he finally said something you liked. That is the definition of being played. The Times is counting on you to do that. They want the clicks. They want to show advertisers that even their critics can’t look away.

As the saying goes, the Times published a piece that confirms the Times has been lying to you for a year, and they want a medal for it.

The only correct response is to amplify independent journalists—the ones who have been reporting on this torture for months without the “opinion” label—while calling for a boycott of the imperialist mouthpiece.

A world without the New York Times as the gatekeeper of war crimes is a world less dangerous. I really, truly, from the bottom of my heart, hope the lawsuit or simple bankruptcy brings it to its knees. It can’t happen soon enough.