For the past nine months, the New York Times has been on a crusade to criticize and undermine the yeshiva community. Story after story contained falsehoods, inaccuracies and half-truths and lacked basic context. Even groups such as the JCRC and Anti-Defamation league called out the Times for their obsession with yeshivas and yeshiva parents. But the Times persisted, hiding behind an underserved presumption of objectivity and legal protections that make it nearly impossible to make a newspaper pay for its journalistic sins.
Those days will soon be over for the paper of record. An email that Times reporter Brian Rosenthal sent to the State Education Department makes it clear that he knew that the “facts” he reported about yeshivas were false.
On December 29, the Times published a front page story “How Hasidic Schools Reaped a Windfall of Special Education Funding” written by Rosenthal. The article made incendiary claims about the percentage of students in Brooklyn yeshivas receiving special education services. Despite yeshiva after yeshiva notifying the Times before the article was published that its figures were off, the Times reported them as fact.
One yeshiva, which was singled out in the article as having 59% of its students receiving services, went so far as to hire a lawyer to let the Times know it was about to print falsehoods about them because the fact was that less than 20% of students receives such services. A New York Times lawyer wrote back to defend its story, saying that “there is no explanation for why the City and State – which could provide independent and authoritative data – were wrong and should be disbelieved.”
The problem for the Times is that there WAS an explanation for why the data it was relying on should be disbelieved. In fact, it was Brian Rosenthal himself who provided that explanation.
PEARLS has obtained an email that Rosenthal sent to the State Education Department about problems with the data about the number of yeshiva students receiving special education services that it had sent him.
Rosenthal wrote that for several schools the State data claimed that “the number of students that they have classified as special ed is higher than their overall enrollment.”
That’s right, to support its claim that yeshivas have a high percentage of students receiving services the Times relied on data that it knew had to be false because the number of students it claimed were receiving special services was greater than the number of students enrolled in the school!
That didn’t stop Rosenthal or the Times from printing its erroneous claims about yeshivas. Their journalistic integrity was as corrupted as the data they relied on.
Rabbi Moshe Dovid Niederman, a member of PEARLS executive board, told YWN that “this proves what we and the Orthodox community have been saying all along. The Times wasn’t objectively reporting facts about yeshivas but was pushing its anti-yeshiva narrative. Now that they have been exposed, they should do the only decent thing they can do: issue a public apology to yeshivas and the yeshiva community.”
Attorney Avi Schick told YWN that “the Times likes to put others under the spotlight but now its own conduct will be under scrutiny. It is normally very difficult to establish that a journalist acted with actual malice. But the revelation of this email demonstrates that Rosenthal knew the data he was relying on wasn’t accurate. That is the kind of thing that can give a lawsuit legs and allow it it get to the discovery phase where the Times would have to disclose its own internal communications.”
Education experts consulted by YWN explained that the State data likely contained cumulative rather than annual figures for schools. In other words, it included students who had received services in prior years but who had already graduated or had left the school.
The New York Times likes to conduct investigations. We suggest they undertake a thorough and transparent investigation of their coverage of the Orthodox community in New York.
YWN Editorial Board
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
33 Responses
A “Public Apology ” From the NYT !!! Never happen . Why isn’t the wonderful AG going after the NYT , & Rosenthal ????
The only language they understand is a 100 million dollar lawsuit.
If Harry Reed could lie on the senate floor on the eve of an election, with excuse that the end justifies the means (his own excuse on 60 minutes) why would the NYT give a hoot?
These are not ethical people.
Thank Goodness I am an Israeli and grateful never to have been an American……
Maybe I’m naive but what’s the bombshell? They lied. They knew they lied. We knew they lied. What else? If someone would sue for defamation, though…
Wait, you’re telling me a leftist rag for state sponsored propaganda publishes lies? Well I for one am shocked.
Why speak of a public apology rather than a libel suit?
If they had to pay for all their lies, the NYT would think twice about allowing such pieces to be published.
The nyt is right tho
No surprise
The Times was always an agenda driven fictional paper
Maybe now all the Yidden who buy the NYT will finally stop!
Did the NY Times actually publish the figures Mr. Rosenthal questioned ?
None of this proves yeshivas are providing anything close to an adequate education to their students.
There are Yeshivas that misappropriate funds. There are Yeshivas that are breaking the law by not providing education that complies with the curriculum but taking money from the government to operate.
Maybe I’m slow, but where is the lie? He seems to be trying to figure out why schools would be reporting the amount of special ed students is greater than enrolled students. There only appear to be a few possibilities, either fraud is happening or one of the numbers was reported incorrectly, which if that is the case you need to figure out why they got that error occured.
…..and there are catholic schools that misappropriate funds end muslim schools that misappropriate funds and public schools that misappropriate funds . And if you heard Mayor Adam’s speech, the yeshivos don’t have much to be embarrassed about vs the public school results. There is plenty of blame to go all around and no reason for a vendetta against the yeshiva system. There is abuse all over and lying all over – Im not justifying any of it – but this finger pointing is wrong, and needs to stop! (Especially when being built up by constant false accusations and fudged numbers)
Maybe this is not quite the bombshell it seems to be.
To understand, one must read the entire NYT response, not just the few sentences highlighted in your graphic.
The yeshiva was contacted one week before the article appeared, asked to provide their own numbers, and was unable to provide any useful data, instead sending an EMAIL chain.
So the NYT had a confirmed number from the City and a school that did not substantively challenge that number with data of their own, even after having been given the opportunity to do so.
Fox news paid $774 million for lying on elections, so will NYT be paying one day.
Sof Ganef Letleeah….
lakewhut: yeshives are providing all they need thats a jewish frum chinuch if you dont like it dont send there you kids thats also in the constitution religion rights
if you dont like it that there is frum jews on the world go plotz
Sue, sue, sue, sue….
mikee, ladler
It is not about defamation, because it’s nearly impossible to prevail in a defamation lawsuit. At the very least, it involves correcting the record.
David019123,
Of course they are. NYT is always “right” because they lack basic journalistic integrity.
j238,
Yes, indeed they did. They wrote about statistics they need to be factually incorrect.
lakewhut,
Although I pray not, it is possible. Don’t worry. If this were true, the New York Times would certainly be reporting on it, and they wouldn’t need to embellish their case.
baalpeh,
They were aware that the numbers they obtained from public sources were inaccurate and incomplete, but they proceeded regardless.
Instead of indicting the yeshivas for fraud, perhaps it would be prudent to read the entire article for WHY the publicly available data is incorrect:
“Education experts consulted by YWN explained that the State data likely contained cumulative rather than annual figures for schools. In other words, it included students who had received services in prior years but who had already graduated or had left the school.”
Shlomo 2,
This is not how journalism functions. The yeshiva is not required to provide this activist with private information. Legally, it is even questionable whether they are permitted to disclose that information.
The Times intentionally utilized erroneous statistics to malign Orthodox Jews.
Dovy,
It is not a Constitutional right. If it was Charedim (Agudah) would’ve sued long ago.
@ExposeYaffed:
This was anonymized, statistical data, not private data.
No legal issue whatsoever in sharing it.
Sure, the school was REQUIRED to share that data with the NYT, but to then complain that the NYT used the wrong data (data that the school was given the opportunity to correct BEFORE publication) is a bit rich.
EDIT OF ABOVE
@ExposeYaffed:
This was anonymized, statistical data, not private data.
No legal issue whatsoever in sharing it.
Sure, the school was not REQUIRED to share that data with the NYT, but to then complain that the NYT used the wrong data (data that the school was given the opportunity to correct BEFORE publication) is a bit rich.
Shlomo 2,
Since my comment was just recently published, I received a copy of the yeshiva’s response to the Times’ inquiry.
The reply sent to Mr. Brian Rosenthal The email I received contains Mr. Rosenthal’s private mobile phone number and email address, but I will not disclose them.
The email was titled “Re: Upcoming New York Times Article Mentioning Yeshiva Beth Hillel of Krasna” and dated December 28, 2022.
Not only did the yeshiva disprove the Times’ claims, but it also sent them a manifest of all the services provided, including the number of students, nature of service, and grade
I would not expect you to know this, but why assume the worst?
You owe them an unreserved apology.
@shlomo-2
Did I read this correctly? Did you say Krasna didn’t provide?
What obligation do they have to provide ANYTHING to the New York Slimes?
Answer that please
Considering as the data they reported was doctored so as to avoid making obvious that they are misrepresenting the data (for example by reporting 59% receiving services, while the data they were pulling that info from showed over 100%), I would think that a jury and judge would consider this to be actual malice which is the applicable legal standard for slander/libel.
Therefore, they should be sued with three objectives:
1) get an injunction from a court preventing them from running any similar articles without going through an approval process (such censorship may be warranted when actual malice can be proven. This would not be a violation of the first amendment)
2) significant cash compensation
3) a formal retraction and removal of said articles (a compelled apology is not worth much)
Shlomo 2…
Journalism should not be sensational agenda driven propaganda. It should not be based on building a case that fits your agenda, based on questionable data, and use a defense that you gave a week for for the accused to counter it before going to press. Investigative journalism should be an honest search for the truth, wherever that takes you.
If the NYT had reason to question what they were seeing, they had an obligation to investigate. You can’t assume guilt and ask the accused to prove innocence. The schools had no obligation to provide anything to the NYT, yet the NYT had an obligation to investigate and be certain of what they were reporting. They clearly weren’t.
@ExposeYaffed et al:
NYT attorney wrote that school was given the opportunity to provide their own data (usable information and accurate numbers) , but did not.
You say that you have proof that NYT lawyer is lying and that usable information and accurate numbers WERE provided.
And not only were they provided, but omitted from the article.
That’s a pretty serious charge – – and it’s not even what the organization speaking for the yeshiva is saying.
All they’re saying is that the NYT used questionable data, not that they refused to use the school’s accurate data, which they already had in their hands.
I look forward to seeing how this will play out in court.
YiddeisheMentch:
Yes, the NYT had reason to question what they were seeing from official sources.
So they questioned it.
They asked the school for their own data (usable information and accurate numbers).
But the school did not provide it.
(One week isn’t a long enough time to come up with that?)
So the NYT went with official and confirmed figures, the only figures they had.
Shlomo,
Yes, the New York Times is lying. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend?
And even if the Yeshiva did not respond to the New York times, they still had no right to use numbers they knew were questionable to bolster their argument.
Shlomo,
Yes, the New York Times is lying. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend?
And even if the Yeshiva did not respond to the New York times, they still had no right to use numbers they knew were questionable to bolster their argument.
And, again, if you’d actually read the article, it does explicitly state that the yeshiva’s lawyers did respond to the Times.
“One yeshiva, which was singled out in the article as having 59% of its students receiving services, went so far as to hire a lawyer to let the Times know it was about to print falsehoods about them because the fact was that less than 20% of students receives such services. A New York Times lawyer wrote back to defend its story, saying that “there is no explanation for why the City and State – which could provide independent and authoritative data – were wrong and should be disbelieved.”
I have a copy of that email.
Shlomo 2…
No. A week is not enough time. But even if you disagree with that- there is still no obligation for the accused to have to prove otherwise to a journalist. And now from some comments, they may have actually sent data proving otherwise (but who knows what’s true or not, guess we’ll see).
The NYT went with “official” but unconfirmed figures that they themselves questioned. What don’t you understand? They have a journalistic responsibility to confirm, not trust and do with what they have on hand. And I love how people say “official” like that gives it integrity. Anyone in business knows that the government is more corrupt and agenda driven than any business, and “official” means nothing.
A report in The New York Times online on June 30, 2023, says a city agency determined that 18 Chasidish yeshivas were not properly teaching English and math.
YiddeisheMentch:
Agreed — they did not HAVE to respond with usable information and accurate numbers.
But, since they didn’t — they shouldn’t be crying about the NYT not including usable information and accurate numbers that they were never given.