SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Bret Stephens brings an unprecedented power over the editorial board at The New York Times because he is seen as the voice of the Israeli government-can-do-no-wrong domestic lobby.
After the long-time skittish New York Times published a lengthy essay by the renowned genocide scholar, Prof. Omer Bartov of Brown University, titled “I’m a Genocide Scholar, I Know It When I see It,” the Palestinian-hater, Times columnist Bret Stephens, immediately jumped into the Netanyahu‑style rebuttal mode. His column was titled “No, Israel is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza.” His cruel and specious assertion, contradicted by many genocide scholars, was that if the Israeli regime was truly genocidal, they would have committed “hundreds of thousands of deaths” in Gaza instead of the mere 60,000 deaths reported by the Hamas‑run Health Ministry.
Get real, Mr. Stephens, the Israeli military has destroyed the lives of at least one out of four Palestinians there, or about half a million at least, from the daily bombing since October 7, 2023, of civilians and their infrastructure. Saturation aerial and artillery bombardments of 2.3 million defenseless Palestinians, also under constant sniper fire, crammed into an area the geographic size of Philadelphia. (See The Lancet, “Counting the Dead in Gaza: Difficult But Essential”, my column “The Vast Gaza Death Undercount—Undermines Civic, Diplomatic, and Political Pressures” and my article in the August-September 2024 Capitol Hill Citizen). American doctors back from Gaza have repeatedly observed that almost all the survivors are sick, injured, or dying.
Seizing on the Hamas regime’s self‑interest in a low death count, to not arouse further the ire of the residents of Gaza against their lack of bomb shelters and other protections, Stephens constructs the usual fictions, reflecting the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s regime, that Israel does not “deliberately target and kill Gazan civilians.” [Former United Nations Ambassador and Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote of Israel under then Prime Minister Menachem Begin that Israel “is wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death and anguish on civilian populations in a mood reminiscent of regimes which neither Mr. Begin nor I would dare to mention by name.”] Look at the reports by Times journalists from the area, see the pictures of the mass murder, the slaughter of babies, children, mothers, and fathers that comprise Netanyahu’s Palestinian holocaust.
Listen to the former Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant’s October 9, 2023 enforced declaration that Israeli demolition of Gaza would include “…no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed.” “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.”
Stephens is immovable. Over a year ago, he shockingly wrote that the Israeli military is not using enough force on the Palestinians.
And so indeed has the Israeli military targeted innocent families, journalists, and U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East staff. To quote Professor Bartov, “the systematic destruction in Gaza not only of housing but also of other infrastructure—government buildings, hospitals, universities, schools, mosques, cultural heritage sites, water treatment plants, agriculture areas, and parks…” Bartov grew up in Israel, served four years in the Israeli army, and knows the situation there in great detail.
Bret Stephens brings an unprecedented power over the editorial board at the Times because he is seen as the voice of the Israeli government-can-do-no-wrong domestic lobby inside the Times who is always ready to frivolously accuse anybody at the paper of antisemitism to shut them up or water down their content.
As Will Solomon reported July 25, 2025 in Counterpunch, Stephens is the “minder” of what is unacceptable criticism of the Israeli regime and has succeeded significantly in his censorship. If you wonder for example why it took the Times editorial board so long to condemn the Israeli regime’s starvation of Gazans, especially the most vulnerable infants and children ( See July 31 editorial and The New York Times July 27, 2025 opinion piece “The World Must See Gaza’s Starvation” by Mohammed Mansour), it is likely the climate of fear or weariness generated by Stephens.
Stephens is given remarkable latitude by the Times editors. His falsifications and antisemitic rage against Palestinian semites (see, “The Other Antisemitism” by Jim Zogby) escape his editors’ pen. He is given unusual space, including a recently concluded weekly column with Gail Collins, which replaced valuable editorial space, with repartees that had become shopworn over the years. He also is given special writing projects.
Consider his background. A former hard-line editor of The Jerusalem Post, then for years a warmongering columnist for The Wall Street Journal. Especially vicious against Palestinians and their supporters, Stephens came to the Times for a singular reason. The Times wanted a right-winger who did not like the new president, Donald Trump. What the Times got was a cunning censor of their journalistic integrity and editorial respect for the regular devastating reports the Times was getting from their own journalists operating out of Jerusalem. They were not allowed into Gaza to report independently on what was being done with U.S. tax dollars and the unconditional support from former U.S. President Joe Biden and now Trump.
Imagine, for example, the Times not writing an editorial following the Israeli booby-trapping of thousands of pagers in Lebanon. This was called a clear war crime by former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
While the Times has published op-eds critical of Israeli aggressions, it has maintained a list of words and phrases that could not be used in its reporting, such as “genocide.” It has avoided doing features on the many Israeli human rights groups sharply taking Netanyahu to task, or groups in the U.S., such as the very active Veterans for Peace with 100 chapters around the U.S. By contrast the Times devoted extensive space to repeated false propaganda by the Israeli regime.
Even coverage of the omnipresent Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now requires dramatic nonviolent civil disobedience, as with the October 24, 2023 sit-in at Grand Central Station, to get into the Times pages.
Throughout the months since October 7, and the mysterious total collapse of the multitiered Israeli border security apparatus on the Gaza border, still denied an official investigation by its perpetrators, the defiant presence of Stephens persists, though it is being countered by the sickening pictures of skeletal, starving Palestinian infants. (A survey last year by a British civic association had 46% of Palestinian children wanting to die and 97% expecting to be killed.)
Credit Stephens with covering his self-designated, intimidating role of policing what should not be appearing by staff in the Times’editorial pages. In his column with Collins, he used humor and praise of Times reports and book reviews not connected with the Israeli domination of the Middle East. Recognizing a no-win situation for herself, Gail Collins agreed not to raise the Israeli-Palestine issue in any of the hundreds of columns she wrote with Stephens, who is disliked by many at the Times.
Stephens is immovable. Over a year ago, he shockingly wrote that the Israeli military is not using enough force on the Palestinians. He refuses to disavow the most racist, vicious descriptions of Palestinians over the years by high Israeli government officials. He refuses to support opening Gaza to foreign journalists, including Israeli journalists. He even declines to support the airlifting of amputated and horribly burned Palestinian children to ready and able hospitals in the U.S.
The New York Times does not fear Donald Trump. But it does fear or is very wary of the smiling, internal censorious presence of this AIPAC clone and the attention he demands because of the forces he represents. The editorial board and Times management need to reject this affront to the freedom of its journalists and the paper’s institutional integrity.
A critic said the Times let Stephens advocate for war with Iran "without even asking him to include a paragraph explaining how such a war would go, what the human toll would be, or how he thinks it would end."
Critics denounced New York Times opinion writer Bret Stephens for advocating for escalation in Iran in a Tuesday column and argued the newspaper shouldn't give him a platform for such "dangerous" rhetoric.
Citing Iran's nuclear capabilities, Stephens, a neoconservative, called for a "direct and unmistakable American response" to the "utterly intolerable threat" posed by Iran. He wrote that the U.S. should, at a minimum, destroy an Iranian missile complex, and should not try to "rein in" Israel as its leaders consider how to respond to a barrage of nearly 200 missiles fired by Iran on Tuesday.
"Incredibly the [Times] editors let Bret Stephens publish an article advocating war with Iran, without even asking him to include a paragraph explaining how such a war would go, what the human toll would be, or how he thinks it would end," Nathan J. Robinson, editor of Current Affairs, a left-wing magazine, wrote on social media.
World Beyond War, an anti-war group, reacted similarly, writing on social media that "Bret Stephens' warmongering in the [Times] fuels the dangerous drumbeat for war with Iran, ignoring the devastating human cost of conflict."
"Escalating violence isn't the answer—it's time for diplomacy, not more destruction," the group added.
Some of Stephens' critics pointed to his record of support for the war in Iraq, which led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.
Qasim Rashid, a Pakistani-American human rights lawyer, said Stephens wanted a "repeat in Iran," arguing that Stephens is "a racist war monger who relishes in promoting war that kills innocent Muslims and people of color."
The Iraq Invasion murdered at least 300,000 innocent civilians. And Bret Stephens wants a repeat in Iran.
Stephens is a racist war monger who relishes in promoting war that kills innocent Muslims & people of color.
And the @nytimes is complicit in continuing to elevate him. pic.twitter.com/nD4g1uTzaw
— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) October 3, 2024
Iran said Tuesday's strikes, which were targeted at Israeli military facilities and were mostly intercepted by Israeli and U.S. forces, were retaliation for recent Israeli assassinations, including of Hassan Nasrallah, who was the leader of Hezbollah, an Iran-backed militia in Lebanon. Israel bombed a residential area last week to assassinate Nasrallah, killing six others in the process, and, earlier on Tuesday, had launched a ground incursion into southern Lebanon.
Stephens, who is Jewish and whose direct family members fled pogroms in Europe, attributes the hostility to Israel by Hezbollah and Iran to antisemitism. He began Tuesday's column by citing an antisemitic quote by Nasrallah, whom he said met an "overdue demise."
The column, titled "We Absolutely Need to Escalate in Iran," then asked readers to imagine a scenario in which one of the Iranian missiles had carried a nuclear warhead.
The invocation of the nuclear threat reminded critics of the justifications used by neoconservatives in the run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Stephens himself was among the many to push the idea that Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein posed a such a threat.
"Saddam may unveil, to an astonished world, the Arab world's first nuclear bomb," Stephens wrote in The Jerusalem Post in November 2002, echoing the arguments for war of then-U.S. President George W. Bush.
This prediction turned out to be flatly wrong—no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. Andre Damon, a journalist at World Socialist Web Site, said Stephens is now repeating old tricks in trying to justify a war with Iran.
"Twenty years on, it's the same script," Damon wrote on social media.
Stephens didn't join the Times until 2017, but the newspaper's coverage in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion has been widely critiqued for parroting the Bush administration's dubious assertions.
Reporting from The New York Times in September 2002. (Photo: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting)
In 2014, Margaret Sullivan, then the Times' public editor, wrote that "the lead-up to the war in Iraq in 2003 was not the Times' finest hour."
"Some of the news reporting was flawed, driven by outside agendas and lacking in needed skepticism," Sullivan wrote. "Many op-ed columns promoted the idea of a war that turned out to be both unfounded and disastrous."
Robinson of Current Affairs argued Tuesday that little had changed.
"The intellectual standards at the paper are so low that you can just say 'we need a war' without answering even basic questions about the war you are proposing," he wrote. "This is precisely the kind of stuff that gave us the horrific Iraq disaster but nothing was learned."
Stephens attended boarding school in Massachusetts and has degrees from the University of Chicago and London School of Economics and Political Science. He became the editor of The Jerusalem Post at age 28, where he named Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq War, the newspaper's "Man of the Year." Stephens also worked at The Wall Street Journal for many years before joining the Times.
Critics have long assailed Stephen's judgment and called for the Times to fire him. In 2019, he received criticism for suggesting that Ashkenazi Jews were smarter than other people. In 2021, Stephens wrote a piece titled "Eric Adams Is Going to Save New York," referring to the then mayoral candidate whose actual mayoralty of the U.S.' biggest city has been riddled with scandal.
The criticism hasn't stopped Stephens from doubling down on his positions and using absolutist language. Last year, he wrote that he didn't regret his support for the Iraq War. And in his Tuesday column, he pushed for Israel's total victory over its foes.
"Wars, once entered, need to be fought through to an unequivocal victory," he wrote.
Presenting both sides of an issue as if they stand on equal, fact-based footing when they don't is not journalism. It's an insidious form of disinformation.
Today's assignment:
You write for the most influential newspaper in America. Your recent column about COVID relied on dubious sourcing, specifically, Person A, who agreed with your personal views on the issue.
Your opening "hook" for readers was Person A's inaccurate and misleading statements. He characterized a medical review in which he participated (along with 11 others) as supporting your position, although the review itself stated that it didn't.
Your column went viral. The medical community condemned Person A's false characterization of the review and highlighted the review's methodological limitations and failings that your column ignored.
Two weeks later, you doubled down on your position.
Shortly thereafter, the review's editor-in-chief issued a statement that Person A and many commentators had misrepresented the review's conclusions.
What do you do now?
What if you're the newspaper's editor?
Bret Stephens' February 21 column on mask mandates created this scandal at the New York Times.
When the next airborne pandemic strikes, the disinformation currently surrounding COVID will paralyze policymakers and the public. Both-sidesing critical mitigation measures such as masks—even when one side lacks serious factual support—has undermined science and created mass confusion.
Over the past three weeks, Stephens and the New York Times have added to that confusion.
The fact is that masks and mask mandates limited the spread of COVID. But Stephens claimed to have "unambiguous" proof from a recent Cochrane Library review that mandates didn't work at all. A cursory reading of the Cochrane review abstract and authors' summary revealed that it expressly—and repeatedly—declined to support Stephens' position:
Likewise before Stephens published his column, the medical community had warned that anti-maskers were misusing the Cochrane review to support their broader agenda.
Throwing caution—and facts—to the wind, Stephens turned to Tom Jefferson, one of the review's 12 authors. Jefferson is a senior associate tutor in the department of continuing education at the University of Oxford. He has a history of being wrong about COVID.
As more than 50,000 Americans were dying during the month of April 2020 alone, Jefferson questioned whether the outbreak was really a pandemic or just a prolonged respiratory flu season. He continues to claim that there is no basis for saying that COVID spreads through airborne transmission, despite the fact that major public health agencies have long said otherwise. The "Declarations of interest" relating to the Cochrane mask review noted that Jefferson had voiced "an opinion on the topic of the review in articles for popular media…[and] was not involved in the editorial process for this review."
Ignoring the red flags, Stephens opened his column by quoting Jefferson's inaccurate and misleading statements, starting with: "'There is just no evidence that they' — masks — "'make any difference. Full stop.'"
Then Stephens blasted CDC Director Rochelle Walensky for acknowledging the limitations in Cochrane's review, accused her of turning the CDC into an "accomplice to the genuine enemies of reason and science," and called for her resignation. He closed by saying that the review had vindicated those who fought mandates.
The Stephens/Jefferson misleading characterization of the Cochrane review provoked widespread condemnation from the medical community and others. Two days after Stephens' column appeared, former CDC Director Tom Frieden wrote on Twitter:
"Community-wide masking is associated with 10-80% reductions in infections and deaths, with higher numbers associated with higher levels of mask wearing in high-risk areas."
As anti-maskers weaponized Stephens' column and it went viral, the New York Times failed to correct it:
The Times March 6 episode of "The Conversation" finally raised the issue. Reaffirming his incorrect position, Stephens ignored the medical community's criticism of the Cochrane review and his column, denied relying solely on the review (even though his column cited nothing else), and dragged his fellow Times mask-mandate critic, David Leonhardt, into the fray.
Four days later, on March 10, Times opinion columnist Zenyep Tufekci, a journalism professor at Columbia University, published yet another detailed critique of the Cochrane review: "Here's Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work." She didn't name Stephens, but she detailed facts and evidence that demolished Jefferson's misleading claims in his column.
Some of that evidence came from Cochrane Library's editor-in-chief, Karla Soares-Weiser. She told Tufekci that Jefferson had seriously misinterpreted its finding on masks when he said that it proved that "there is just no evidence that they make any difference."
"[T]hat statement is not an accurate representation of what the review found," Soares-Weiser said.
Hours later, Soares-Weiser issued Cochrane's statement repeating the cautionary caveats in the review itself, which "has been widely misinterpreted… Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses." (Italics in original)
Cochrane's statement also called out the purveyors of disinformation: "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation." (Italics in original)
How the Times Made It Worse
The Tufekci article suggested that the Times had come down on the side of fact-based science demonstrating that masks and mandates had been effective. But on Sunday, March 12, its online edition presented mask mandates as a debatable proposition: Should we use them in the next pandemic?
Using a "Yes" or "No" format, the Times relied on Dr. Anders Tegnell, former state epidemiologist for Sweden, to defend the "No Mask Mandate" position. Given the parameters of the hypothetical pandemic that the Times posed (only five cases of a deadly respiratory virus in a single jurisdiction and 10 cases nationwide), Tegnell said that masks should be used in health and elder care settings. He said that it was too soon for a mandate, but the decision would depend on how the situation unfolded.
So even the "No" wasn't really a no. The Times failed to mention that Tegnell had presided over his country's disastrous "do-nothing" response during the first year of COVID-19, when Sweden's COVID death rate far exceeded neighboring Nordic countries.
Stephens moved on without remorse, but the incalculable damage left in his wake endures. Mask mandates are disappearing and won't return any time soon, but not because they were ineffective when needed. The catastrophic consequences of Stephens' disinformation will arrive when the next airborne virus (or COVID variant) strikes, pandemic victims overwhelm hospitals, policymakers and the public disregard science, and a proven mitigation tool remains on the shelf.
The Times is complicit. After failing to issue a correction to Stephens' column, it then regressed to both-sidesism. Presenting both sides of an issue as if they stand on equal, fact-based footing when they don't is not journalism. It's an insidious form of disinformation.
When it involves public health, it can be deadly.