New York Post, on Gaza, 6 November 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

'cries himself to sleep' because NYT won't call a 'genocide,' wants $50 million: lawsuit

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

A very sensitive Manhattan man is suing the New York Times for $50 million because it won’t call the Israel-Hamas war “genocide” — causing him to “cry himself to sleep” and feel “gaslit” by the paper, according to a . Timothy Murphy is seeing red over the Gray Lady’s coverage of the war in Gaza , Murphy insists that a leaked internal memo instructing editorial staff to restrict use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” when reporting on the conflict promotes anti-Palestinian “propaganda,” according to the suit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court in April.

A copy of The New York Times on Monday, Aug. 31, 2026. NurPhoto via Getty Images “The New York Times — in order to deceive the public about Israel’s genocide — forbade (among other words and phrases) the use of the word genocide,” the lawsuit states. “Forbidding the use of the word genocide serves no purpose other than to hide genocide.” The memo, written by the paper’s international editor Philip Pan and its standards editor Susan Wessling in November 2023 , was leaked and reported by The Intercept the following year, according to the lawsuit.

Explore More Chilling new details about dad who threw two young kids from parking garage before jumping Trump fires Susie Wiles after midterm blowout, names Stephen Miller as new chief of staff Powerful Dem threatens incoming Trump chief of staff Stephen Miller minutes after his appointment It instructed journalists covering the Gaza war to limit use of the words “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land.

“‘Genocide….has a specific definition in international law. [W]e should generally use it only in the context of those legal parameters. We should also set a high bar for allowing others to use it as an accusation, whether in quotations or not, unless they are making a substantive argument based on the legal definition,” the memo stated, according to the lawsuit. Murphy, however, insists the paper should use the “conventional” definition of “genocide” when reporting on .

He claims that definition is: “The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.” People attend a vigil outside The New York Times headquarters in New York to honor slain Palestinian journalist Saleh Aljafarawi on Oct. 14, 2025. Anadolu via Getty Images By leaving out the phrase “genocide” and allegedly hiding the “truth,” the paper made him feel depressed and crazy — and he wants big bucks in damages, according to the lawsuit.

“Plaintiff cried himself to sleep on numerous occasions and was wrought by insomnia on others. Plaintiff had compromised health through stress and a profound feeling of helplessness,” it states. “Plaintiff had the sense of his own insanity by virtue of the gaslighting and naked hypocrisy. An obsession for truth began to grip him,” it adds. “Heightened depression and anxiety followed from The New York Times ’ persistent effort to help the genocide” Along with demanding $50 million, Murphy also demands that the paper place a warning label on top of any “censored” article about the Gaza war.

“Similar to the tobacco companies, a warning on the top of any censored article [should state] “WARNING: PROPAGANDA” or “WARNING: MISINFORMATION,” the lawsuit declares. A spokesman for the Times didn’t immediately return a request for comment Friday.

Read the original article on nypost.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (2)

The New York Post reports a lawsuit demanding the New York Times call Israel's assault on Gaza a genocide, but ridicules the named plaintiff in its own voice and presents the genocide only as one man's claim. It calls the subject the "Israel-Hamas war" and "harm done to Palestinians", and never tells readers that a UN Commission of Inquiry found in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.

  1. Hedges the documented record

    Serious

    “Israel-Hamas war”

    Why this matters
    The Post names the subject in its own voice as the "Israel-Hamas war" and puts 'genocide' in quotation marks as the complaint of a 'sensitive man'.
    The impression it gives
    That this is a two-sided war and that calling it genocide is a fringe or emotional view with no official standing.
    The context
    The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry found on 16 September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip. The article, which turns entirely on whether the word genocide should be used, never mentions this finding.

    How we know

    • On the recordThe UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry found, on 16 September 2025, that Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip.ohchr.org (opens in a new tab)
    • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “Commission” and “Inquiry”.

    Show it in the article

    “which he claims is “hoodwinking” readers by covering up “Israel’s genocide.””

    Why this matters
    The Post lets "Israel's genocide" appear only as Murphy's claim, inside quotation marks, in a sentence that calls him "blubbering".
    The impression it gives
    That the genocide is an assertion made by one upset litigant, not a documented finding.
    The context
    A UN Commission of Inquiry found that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. The Post sets nothing from the record beside Murphy's words, so the finding exists for the reader only as his claim.

    How we know

    • On the recordThe UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry found, on 16 September 2025, that Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip.ohchr.org (opens in a new tab)

    Show it in the article

    “harm done to Palestinians”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice the Post reduces Israel's killing in Gaza to "harm done to Palestinians", with no actor and no word for killing.
    The impression it gives
    That the dispute is over how to describe some unspecified harm, not mass killing that a UN body has called genocide.
    The context
    The record documents Israel's killing in Gaza as genocide according to the UN Commission of Inquiry. The article never says Palestinians were killed by Israel.

    How we know

    • On the recordThe UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry found, on 16 September 2025, that Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip.ohchr.org (opens in a new tab)

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    A Manhattan man is suing the New York Times for $50 million over its restrictions on the word genocide in coverage of Israel's assault on Gaza. A UN Commission of Inquiry found in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip.

  2. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “Sensitive man”

    Why this matters
    The Post labels the plaintiff a "Sensitive man" in its headline, in its own voice.
    The impression it gives
    That the case is a joke about an oversensitive person rather than a complaint about how a newspaper reports Gaza.
    The context
    The article's own body sets out a substantive complaint about a newsroom memo restricting the terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing". The headline mocks the man before the reader sees it.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“restrict use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing””

    Show it in the article

    “The blubbering Big Apple resident”

    Why this matters
    The Post calls the named plaintiff "blubbering" in its own voice.
    The impression it gives
    That Murphy is a weeping figure of fun and his argument need not be taken seriously.
    The context
    The weeping is the lawsuit's own description of claimed distress. The Post turns it into a personal insult in its narration.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Plaintiff cried himself to sleep on numerous occasions”

    Show it in the article

    “bonkers new lawsuit”

    Why this matters
    The Post calls the suit "bonkers" in its own voice.
    The impression it gives
    That the whole complaint, including its point about the Times memo, is absurd.
    The context
    The article itself confirms the memo existed and was reported by The Intercept. The Post's verdict covers the whole suit without separating the damages claim from the factual complaint.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“was leaked and reported by The Intercept”

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from New York Post

  1. 28 OctIDF kills three Hamas terrorists in Gaza airstrikes, including Oct. 7 kidnapper8.7
  2. 21 OctHamas terrorist who barbarically paraded Shani Louk's half-naked body killed by IDF8.2
  3. 18 OctA year after a starving Evyatar David appeared on this paper's cover, he's reunited with his brother — and playing guitar at his wedding0.0
  4. 15 OctKamala Harris criticizes Biden, Trump administrations for not acting ‘more forcefully’ against Israel6.0
  5. 12 OctBenjamin Netanyahu calls for criminal probe of 'NAZA' documentary's anonymous IDF sources6.0

Everything we scored from New York Post