As One Nation make the case to privatise the Ultimo Taxpayer-Funded Marxist Collective, laughingly referred to as our ‘national broadcaster’, she is getting some unexpected support from the New York Times. Unexpected and inadvertent.
The shareholders for the most infamous US newspaper in circulation are holding it to account for the antisemitic and anti-Israel bile that has been replete throughout its reporting apparatus.
Shareholders launched a lawsuit against the New York Times alleging that the “paper has failed to meet its obligation: to tell readers the truth and correct itself in a timely fashion when it doesn’t.”
If only the ABC’s ‘shareholders’ – the Australian taxpayers – had such an option. Instead, the best we can hope for is for the ABC to conduct ‘an internal investigation’, which amounts to the ABC asking itself if it’s done anything wrong, and – quelle surprise! – telling itself that it hasn’t.
The ABC’s pro-Hamas bias has been repeatedly called out: the royal commission into antisemitism has heard that “the ABC has repeatedly failed to meet that obligation and has either wittingly or unwittingly promoted ‘extremist narratives that vilify Israel and, by extension, Jews’.” ABC management admitted to the RC that it had repeated the lie that “14,000 babies were facing imminent starvation in Gaza”.
Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) has shown that ABC management is openly directing its journalists to parrot grotesque lies about ‘genocide’, while repeating without qualification the claims of ‘Gazan’ authorities – that is to say, Hamas – at the same time that it uniformly questions anything said by the Israeli government.
The ABC’s bias is so blatant that even its own ombudsman couldn’t avoid concluding that it had committed “five distinct breaches of editorial standards” in its Middle East coverage.
If only Australian taxpayers had the same recourse as the NYT’s shareholders. Over in the private sphere, institutional investors have decided that paying for metropolitan pretension while being fed a steady diet of militant apologetics is a mug’s game.
The suit, filed by the State Board of Administration of Florida (SBA) and the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), was first revealed in a September 23 exclusive by the Free Press. It petitions the New York County Supreme Court to “to force the Times board of directors to hand over internal records the company has refused to produce for four months, the majority of which pertain to the paper’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.”
We can only imagine the frantic shredding of memoranda and sanitising of corporate inboxes currently taking place in Manhattan. Yet the timing could not be more exquisite. A scholarly dissection of the Grey Lady’s output by Yale’s Professor Edieal Pinker scrutinised over 1500 articles published between the atrocities of October 7, 2023, and the middle of the following year.
Pinker’s findings were hardly a shock to anyone blessed with functioning optical nerves and not deranged by Islamo-leftist antisemitism. The good professor established a relentless editorial bias that routinely pinned the entirety of the blame upon the Jewish State whilst gently absolving the Islamic cut-throats of any agency whatsoever.
The mask occasionally slips entirely, as demonstrated by correspondent Isabel Kershner, whose staggering inversion suggested that “Israelis still largely view themselves as the victims of Oct 7”, as though it was Presbyterians who’d been targeted for mass slaughter on that awful day. When the inevitable backlash arrived, the offending sentence vanished into the memory hole accompanied by a mumbled editorial excuse about a regrettable ‘error’.
The Free Press reporter Maya Sulkin, who broke the story, summarized that the newly launched lawsuit “includes the testimony from a whistleblower, a former Times employee who is Jewish and spent nearly a decade on the paper’s video desk.” Per Sulkin, “the whistleblower raised concerns about antisemitism and anti-Israel bias on her desk at least 15 separate times between 2019 and her March 2026 departure, using every channel the company makes available to employees, including her managers, the standards desk, and human resources.”
When one internal critic attempts to flag institutional rot nearly 20 times through official bureaucratic channels only to be met with systemic stonewalling, the rot has clearly reached the boardroom. The manufacturing of consent for extremist narratives is not a collection of unfortunate accidents: it is the production line itself.
The editorial line of America’s premier journal of record has repeatedly functioned as little more than a public relations wing for fundamentalist terror organisations. We saw this grotesque choreography reach its zenith during the early weeks of the conflict when the newspaper swallowed whole a fabricated Hamas press release blaming Jerusalem for an explosion at the Al-Ahli hospital. An explosion caused, in fact, by a malfunctioning Hamas rocket.
As the Dispatch’s Jeryl Bier pointed out in a piece excoriating the newspaper, “the accompanying photo was not even of the hospital, but rather of a building in a city some 15 miles to the south.”
With breathless incompetence, the front page was plastered with imagery of entirely unrelated carnage to cement a blood libel in the minds of millions before the factual debris had even settled. Nor was this an isolated aberration. Similar creative writing exercises involved trumpeting fictitious accounts of starving infants, only for the gruesome narrative to collapse when it was revealed the child in question suffered from a pre-existing neurological condition entirely unrelated to the propagandists’ claims.
Whether on the sunlit shores of Sydney or the concrete canyons of New York, the story remains depressingly uniform. Taxpayer-subsidised agitprop in our own backyard and endowment-funded bias abroad operate from the identical playbook. But as the Manhattan shareholders have just demonstrated, even the most insulated cathedral of arrogance eventually has to answer to its paymasters – unless its paymasters are the long-suffering taxpayer.
