Sensitive man 'cries himself to sleep' because NYT won't call Israel-Hamas war a 'genocide,' wants $50 million: lawsuit
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 bonkers new lawsuit. The blubbering Big Apple resident Timothy Murphy is seeing red over the Gray Lady’s coverage of the war in Gaza , which he claims is “hoodwinking” readers by covering up “Israel’s genocide.” 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 harm done to Palestinians.
Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture
The article reports the Times memo saying genocide has a specific legal definition, and the plaintiff's claim that the Times hides Israel's genocide, but never says a UN Commission of Inquiry found Israel has committed genocide in Gaza or that the ICJ has issued provisional measures in the genocide case. Without this a reader believes the genocide is only the plaintiff's opinion and that the memo's legal bar has not been met.
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)
- On the recordThe International Court of Justice has issued provisional measures in the genocide case against Israel; this is a documented finding, not an allegation awaiting a reporter's verdict.icj-cij.org (opens in a new tab)
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)