“Different strokes for different people” is an aphorism I grew up with without knowing the origin. Yet it aptly describes the dominant story in the media landscapes of three different countries.
The media, beyond its conventional role in public life, often reflects the prevailing events, zeitgeist, and apprehensions peculiar to its domain of operations.
While political party primaries and “porting” — defecting from one party to another — are dominating Nigeria’s media, with increasing political activity signalling that the 2027 elections are around the corner, Nicholas Kristof’s incendiary opinion column is taking over discourse in the Israeli and American media landscapes.
On Monday, May 11, 2026, Nicholas Kristof, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, published an investigative opinion piece in The New York Times that is shaking the foundations of the journalism profession, the military, and the rights of prisoners.
The piece, titled “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians”, features testimonies from 14 anonymous sources. It centres around the inhuman treatment of Palestinians in Israeli detention camps, as reported by victims and human rights organisations, and the selective attention given to issues by the international community. He also alleged in the piece that Israeli soldiers are training dogs to commit sexual assault against detainees.
Since the publication, it seems the world has known no peace in media and political discourse. Accusations and counteraccusations are flying like FPV drones from Hamas targeting the IDF’s positions and movements deep into Gaza and Lebanon.
Already, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has instructed his legal advisers to consider “the harshest legal action against The New York Times and Nicholas Kristof”. On Thursday, May 14, about 200 Jewish demonstrators staged a protest at the NYT headquarters in New York to shame the outlet for repeatedly spreading blood libels against the Jewish state.
The turmoil notwithstanding, the news outlet has stood firm in its editorial defence of the writer. On two occasions, through Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander and Danielle Rhoades Ha, the paper took Netanyahu’s legal threat to the cleaners, calling it “without merit” and stating that “this threat, similar to one made last year, is part of a well-worn political playbook.” In fact, the NYT described the controversial opinion column as “a deeply reported piece of opinion journalism.”
However, the authenticity of Kristof’s opinion is already being questioned from an unfamiliar flank.
Ehud Olmert, former Israeli Prime Minister from 2006 to 2009, a staunch critic of Netanyahu and one of the voices cited in the report, came out to say he was misquoted.
Such a denial from somebody of Olmert raises questions about the credibility of the report.
If a microscope is used to examine the conduct of the NYT, the IDF, and other Israeli security architecture, none can come out pristine. For the NYT, traces of yellow journalism were evident during the war with Hamas for the control of Gaza. In many instances, atrocious crimes were laid at the feet of Israel, which, at the end of the day, were found to have been unleashed by jihadist armed groups.
Again, in 2023, some months after the October 7 Hamas attack on the state of Israel, the NYT erred by publishing that the Israeli Air Force had bombed a hospital in Gaza, and also published a photo of a starving, skeletal, gaunt-looking Palestinian child on its front page. These errors elicited lengthy corrections and an editor’s note from the newspaper.
For many commentators, past errors on related issues call for a careful and detailed scrutiny of issues being raised now.
Even for the new claims by Nicholas Kristof and the NYT, explosive as they may seem, experts from different fields of endeavour are pointing out fissures in the narrative about dogs being trained to rape detainees. For now, the depth of the fissures identified is as important as the scintilla of truth laid bare in the report. Without taking sides, it is obvious that the two sides are making frantic efforts to untangle themselves from cobwebs.
Israel’s conduct, on its part, can at best be described as checkered. In 2004, Yahya Sinwar, a Hamas man in deed and in truth, was serving years in Israeli prison before becoming Hamas’s leader in Gaza. While serving a life sentence, Dr Yuval Bitton, a prison doctor, diagnosed a life-threatening brain tumour and severe neurological conditions that made Sinwar unstable and prone to falling.
Despite his being a prisoner, the Israelis never left Sinwar to his fate; a life-saving and successful procedure was carried out. That is one clean part of the checkered robe.
But other incidents, despite various disciplinary interventions by the Israeli military hierarchy, have only been scrubbed with vigour without making the robe spotless.
One such stain that defied scrubbing is Sami Al-Saei.
In an interview published by The Guardian on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, Sami Al-Saei gave graphic and horrific details of assault by Israeli soldiers that resulted in him bleeding from his rectum for three weeks.
When Al-Saei’s experience is merged with the Sde Teiman detention controversy, the wearing of Messiah patches, and the destruction of a cross by soldiers in Lebanon, it points to the fact that there is still much chaff in the wheat, despite the efforts of the winnower.
From the look of things, what we have is a standoff. The two protagonists are not ready to toe the line of the Yoruba saying that says, “Ti irin ba kan irin, ekan a te fun ekan” — meaning: when two irons meet in the arena, one must bend for the other.
The NYT is standing by its report, its writer, and is ready for a libel defence.
The Israelis, on their part, have turned the “Never Again” mantra into blood flowing in their veins. None of them is ready to blink first.
But my fear is not with Israel. When a state is found wanting, a simple diplomatic shuttle can change things. My apprehension is for the New York Times as the fourth estate of the realm. Already, their reputation is being questioned in the court of public opinion, leaving one to wonder what would happen if they were found culpable in a court of law. Would they still have the effrontery to confront the grotesque in society?
If the iconic black Gothic font that represents something special to millions of subscribers and readers should crack under legal scrutiny, would their print run increase or decrease? What happens to their 12.8 million online subscriber base? I hope the NYT comes out clean in this trial, as anything short of that would crumble the pillars, foundation, and the attics built by the forebears of the profession.
Shodunke, a media practitioner, writes via [email protected]
Read the full article here
