How The New York Times Constructs False Narratives: From Nazi Germany to Gaza’s “Starving” Boy

My research based on Ashley Rindsberg’s book The Gray Lady Winked and an analysis of historical and contemporary cases.

The Concept of the False Media Narrative

American journalist Ashley Rindsberg avoids the term “fake news”, preferring a more precise definition — “false media narrative.”
This isn’t a one-time journalistic error but a systemic construction, where:

“Facts, storylines, and ideas are selected and framed to serve a particular ideological or political goal.”

The key distinction from an ordinary mistake lies in its networked nature: multiple journalists, editors, and publication formats amplify the same thesis repeatedly until it becomes resistant to refutation.
It’s the old “rotten herring” technique.

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

“Most people are more corrupt in small matters than in great ones. They lie in small things but would be too ashamed to resort to a big lie. Therefore, they cannot believe others could have the impudence to distort the truth so grossly…”

---

1930s–1940s: When the NYT Covered for the Nazis

📅 1930s
During the rise of Nazism, The New York Times published pieces downplaying anti-Jewish pogroms in Germany, portrayed the 1936 Berlin Olympics positively, and even echoed Nazi propaganda at the start of WWII:

NYT, September 2, 1939: “Hitler gives word” — the headline appeared on the front page, while Hitler’s speech was printed alongside it. Hitler’s proclamation to the army, which stated Germany was under attack and vowed to respond with force. This proclamation was issued just as Germany invaded Poland, marking the start of World War II. The article also reported on the proclamation’s content, including Germany’s accusation that Warsaw had appealed to arms and its warning to foreigners to leave Poland at their own risk

2000s: Myths of the Second Palestinian Intifada

1. Ariel Sharon as the “Trigger”

📅 September 30, 2000
On the same day, The New York Times ran three articles and an editorial, claiming Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount “sparked the intifada.”

NYT: “His visit set off a wave of violence that could have been prevented.”

Fact: Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti later admitted (Al-Hayat, 2001) that the intifada had been planned in advance.

---

2. The Tuvia Grossman Photo

The photo showed an Israeli policeman with a baton standing next to a bloodied boy. The caption read:

“An Israeli policeman and a Palestinian youth on the Temple Mount.”

The visual message was clear — the Israeli as aggressor, the boy as victim.

Reality: the boy was Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish-American student whom the policeman was protecting from a lynch mob of Palestinians.
The photo was taken at a gas station, not on the Temple Mount.

Fact: there are no gas stations on the Temple Mount (Google Earth, 2000). The photo was cropped to hide the gas station sign — a classic propaganda technique.

These weren’t random mistakes but the product of ideological blindness: journalists reinforced a ready-made narrative where Israel is the aggressor and Palestinians the victims.

3. The Case of Muhammad al-Durrah

📅 September 30, 2000
Another case: the story of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Durrah, allegedly shot dead by Israeli soldiers. The footage went global, becoming a symbol of “Israeli cruelty.”

Fact: later investigations showed the footage was staged, and the circumstances of the boy’s death remain disputed.
In 2013, a French court ruled the video did not prove Israeli responsibility. Yet, The New York Times continued referring to it as fact.

For the NYT, the “Palestinian victim vs. Israeli aggressor” narrative was too ideologically perfect to abandon. Reporters such as the infamous Judith Miller helped entrench the myth through repetition and embellishment.

---

2019: The Antisemitic Cartoon

📅 April 2019
In its international edition, The New York Times published a cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a dog on a leash held by Donald Trump.

NYT: “We regret the publication of this antisemitic cartoon. It was offensive and an error.” (NYT, April 29, 2019)

After the backlash, the paper stopped running editorial cartoons in its international edition. But, as we now know — it didn’t stop publishing “starving boys.”