State of Florida Sues The New York Times
The demand: Force The New York Times Company to disclose internal board records
- Updated
At the center of the petition stands testimony from a former Jewish employee in the paper's video desk, who worked there for nearly a decade and left in March 2026.
According to the allegations, since 2019 she raised concerns about antisemitism and anti-Israel bias at least 15 times to managers, the standards desk, and human resources. One response attributed to an HR representative was: “If you don't like our values here, maybe you should find a place whose values match yours.” The plaintiffs argue that despite exhausting all internal reporting channels, her complaints received no meaningful response.  72 Corrections and a Controversial Column The petition also points to a series of cases where the newspaper was forced to correct or qualify publications regarding the war between Israel and Hamas.
Among others, it cites a study tallying 72 errors admitted by the newspaper itself in coverage between October 2023 and June 2024, as well as early coverage of the blast at Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, regarding which editors conceded they relied too heavily on claims by Hamas. 
Another point of contention is an opinion column by Nicholas Kristof from May 2026, which alleged systematic sexual violence against Palestinian detainees, including the use of dogs. Israel threatened a libel lawsuit; the Times' opinion editor later announced that the paper stood behind the column. The plaintiffs seek to examine whether the board's verification and oversight processes were implemented or bypassed in this instance.  Goldfeder clarified: “We are not asking the court to judge the content. We are asking who at the top of The New York Times, if anyone, ensures that the rules the paper publishes are actually enforced.” Response from the Times The paper's spokesperson: Charlie Stadtlander dismissed the petition. “The lawsuit is without merit and was filed for an improper purpose,” he said. According to him, although the petition is framed as an inspection demand for books and records of a public company, it is a transparent attempt to apply ideological pressure on an independent news organization, levy false accusations of bias, and chill journalism protected by the First Amendment. 
The court in New York will have to decide whether shareholders have a right to inspect board documents or whether this constitutes, as the paper claims, political interference under the guise of corporate governance.
