Too Fun to Check: 'Civil War' At the NYT Over Kristof's Blood Libel?
The New York Times is facing internal conflict over an op-ed by Nick Kristof that has drawn accusations of antisemitism. The piece, which alleges serious misconduct by Israeli prison guards, has led to threats of a libel lawsuit from Israeli officials. Many journalists within the Times are frustrated with the Opinion section's standards and the scrutiny it brings to the paper as a whole.
- ▪Nick Kristof's op-ed has sparked significant backlash from both pro-Israel advocates and internal staff at the New York Times.
- ▪Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has threatened to sue the Times for libel regarding the claims made in Kristof's piece.
- ▪Many Times journalists are concerned about the sourcing of Kristof's allegations and feel that the Opinion section is not held to the same standards as the news division.
Hot Air files mainly under politics. We currently carry 488 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Hot Air |
| Canonical URL | https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2026/05/18/too-fun-to-check-civil-war-at-the-nyt-over-kristofs-blood-libel-n3815069 |
| Publication time | Mon, 18 May 2026 18:30:48 -0400 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-18T22:34:56.987Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-18T22:34:56.987Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | j6Ai2jcx7mbs |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Too Fun to Check: 'Civil War' At the NYT Over Kristof's Blood Libel? Ed Morrissey 6:30 PM | May 18, 2026 AP Photo/Sara Cline What happened? Did someone in the New York Times news division feel unsafe over another op-ed? The last civil war at the Times happened in 2020, when the entire staff threatened to walk off the job unless the Paper of Wreckard renounced Tom Cotton and denounced op-ed chief Bennet, forcing management to appease the reporters by throwing Bennet out of his job. Advertisement googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display("div-gpt-300x250_4"); //googletag.pubads().refresh([gptAdSlot["div-gpt-300x250_4"]]) }); This time, though, the reporters have a legitimate beef, and it's not about feeling unsafe.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Hot Air.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Hot Air
