AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
The New York Times is reportedly conducting an internal
investigation to identify the source behind leaked information about its
coverage of Israel and Gaza. According to Vanity Fair, the internal investigation follows a report in The Intercept about the Times shelving an episode of its podcast The Daily over doubts regarding the accuracy of a highly controversial blockbuster New York Times article published at the end of December alleging Hamas members committed widespread sexual violence, weaponized it, on October 7th. Vanity Fair reports that in recent weeks management of The New York Times have questioned at least two dozen staffers, including producers of The Daily, the podcast, in an attempt to understand how internal details about the podcast’s editorial process got out.
Democracy Now! asked The New York Times about the
internal investigation. The paper’s international editor, Phil Pan, said
in a statement, quote, “We aren’t going to comment on internal matters.
I can tell you that the work of our newsroom requires trust and
collaboration, and we expect all of our colleagues to adhere to these
values,” end-quote.
The New York Times article
at the center of the controversy was published December 28th. It was
headlined “'Screams Without Words': How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence
on Oct. 7.” In it, the Times reported they had found evidence
of systematic sexual violence orchestrated by Hamas and that their
two-month investigation, quote, “uncovered painful new details,
establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but
part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7,” unquote.
However, not long after the highly publicized article was published,
major discrepancies began to emerge, including public comments from the
family of a major subject of the article, contradictory claims from a
key witness, and criticisms over a lack of solid evidence in the overall
investigation. Then news emerged last week that one of the three
authors of The New York Times piece, named Anat Schwartz, had
liked multiple posts on social media advocating for violence against
Palestinians, including one that called for turning Gaza into a
slaughterhouse. Anat Schwartz is an Israeli filmmaker who had no prior
reporting experience before she was assigned by the Times to work on the major investigation along with her relative Adam Sella and veteran Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman.
On Wednesday, The Intercept published another in-depth investigation that further questions the Times
article and the reporting process behind it. It’s headlined “'Between
the Hammer and the Anvil': The Story Behind the New York Times October 7
Exposé,” and the two Intercept reporters who wrote it join us today. Jeremy Scahill is a senior reporter and correspondent at The Intercept. He’s joining us from Germany. And Ryan Grim is The Intercept’s bureau chief in Washington, D.C., where he joins us from.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Jeremy, let’s begin with you. Can you lay out first the significance of the New York Times article that’s at the center of the controversy, and then talk about your latest piece, that looks into how it all came about?
JEREMY SCAHILL:
Well, Amy, in early December, you had the death toll skyrocketing in
Gaza. You had a number of nations, including those that are allies with
Israel, starting to speak out about the death toll among women,
children, the elderly. And part of a pattern of what we’ve seen
throughout the course of these five months of scorched-earth attacks
against Gaza is that whenever Israel perceives itself to be losing the
narrative war or when it needs to remind the public of its perception
that Israel is the only victim in this story, they unload a new round of
attacks against a variety of individuals or organizations that are
working in Gaza or living in Gaza, human beings. We saw that with the
attacks against UNRWA. We saw that with the attacks against Al-Shifa and other hospitals.
And in early December, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his
government really began an intense propaganda campaign to convince the
world that Hamas had engaged in a systematic campaign of rape aimed at
Jewish women and girls. And then they launched this fake criticism of
feminist organizations, saying that they had all systematically failed
to stand up and denounce this systematic rape regime that had been
intentionally implemented by Hamas in the October 7th attacks. And on
the day that Netanyahu made his most prominent statement about this,
President Biden was at a fundraising event in Boston, and he issued — he
made a statement at his speech that echoed what Netanyahu said, and
said the world, you know, can’t turn away and ignore this.
Well, what was happening at that very moment was that The New York Times,
with one of its most prominent international correspondents, Jeffrey
Gettleman, he had recently hit the ground in Israel, and he was working —
Gettleman enlisted the help of two individuals that were going to work
with him there. And Gettleman had proposed three lines of investigation,
and one of them was the issue of sexual violence. And the two
individuals that Gettleman was working with, one of them is a very young
person who’s only recently gotten into journalism, Adam Sella, and he
had mostly been like a food journalist and has a background in looking
at agricultural issues, etc. He had started to write some freelance
pieces that were dipping into the waters of politics and the conflict,
but a quite inexperienced reporter. And then, the other was someone with
no reporting experience outside of making some documentary films, and
that is Anat Schwartz. It’s unclear how Anat Schwartz, in particular,
got involved with this project.
And as you mentioned, she had, early on in the Israeli attacks
against Gaza, liked a tweet that actually was cited by the International
Court of Justice as a potentially — a statement of potential genocidal
incitement. She also liked the tweet from the Israeli government
promoting the debunked allegation that 40 babies had been beheaded on
October 7th, which is entirely false, as well as another tweet that
said, “We must just refer to Hamas as ISIS.”
And so, they start off on this investigation, and our understanding
from sources is that the overwhelming majority of the interviews and
reporting that was being done on the ground was being handled by Anat
Schwartz and Adam Sella.
And we discovered a podcast interview with Anat Schwartz in Hebrew
that she gave, where she — it’s a shocking podcast in how much detail
she offers about the process that they used when they were reporting it.
And just to put it in a nutshell, she describes how the first thing
that she did was start to call around to what she describes as all of
the Israeli hospitals that have facilities that are called Room 4
facilities. These would be the intake places where people who have been
victims of sexual crimes, including assault and rape, etc., where they
would be examined or their cases would be referred. And she said that
not a single one of them reported that they had any reports of sexual
assault or rape on October 7th.
She then started calling around to a rape crisis hotline and
describes how she had this, what she described as an intense
conversation with the manager of the rape crisis hotline in that part of
Israel, where she was dumbfounded when he was saying he didn’t have any
calls reporting sexual assault or rape. And she’s saying, “How is this
possible?”
And then she starts talking — she goes to a holistic therapeutic
center that was established at a former high-end retreat center outside
of Tel Aviv, where mostly people from the Nova rave, where there were
attacks and where a couple of hundred people were killed — it was a
place where people could do alternative medicine and yoga, relaxation
therapy — I mean, people who were highly traumatized. And she goes
there, and her characterization was that she sensed what she called a
“conspiracy of silence” among the therapists, because none of them were
telling her, “Yes, we’re treating people who were raped or had
experienced sexual assault.”
And so, when she went through all the official channels, the places
where you would reach out to see, if you’re exploring if there’s a
pattern here, what then happened is she starts to look at who’s been
interviewed about alleged rapes during the October 7th attacks, and ends
up then going and reinterviewing a handful of people who already had
made assertions that they witnessed rapes. And some of these people had
told varying versions of their stories — which in and of itself does not
necessarily mean that they didn’t witness something. I mean, these are
people that were in the midst of an incredibly violent episode. But more
central to that is that some of the people that The New York Times
relied on to assert that there was a systematic, intentional campaign
of rape weaponized by Hamas were people that have no forensic
credentials, no crime scene credentials. These were people that are not
legally permitted in Israel to determine rape, that they relied on these
individuals to make this claim that there was a systematic rape regime
implemented.
And some of those people, Amy, have well-documented track records of
promoting very incendiary narratives about atrocities that occurred on
October 7th that were flagrantly false. Just two examples. One of the
most prominent or ubiquitous figures that has emerged in Israel’s
narrative that Hamas committed systematic rape is an architect from New
Jersey named Shari Mendes, who is living in Israel now and is a member
of the Israeli Defense Forces rabbinical unit. And she was deployed to
prepare women’s bodies for burial in the bases where Hamas attacked
military facilities. And she’s been quoted widely saying that they saw
widespread evidence of rape and that she personally saw it. She
described broken pelvises, not just among, you know, soldiers, but among
grandmothers and children. But Shari Mendes also was quoted by the Daily Mail
as saying that a pregnant woman had a fetus cut out of her body and
that the fetus was beheaded and then the mother was beheaded. This is
entirely false. We’ve gone through all of the official records that
Israel has put out on people who died that day. There was no pregnant
woman killed that day. That’s been thoroughly debunked. She also relied
on Yossi Landau, a senior official at Zaka. Zaka has been — it’s an
ultra-Orthodox private rescue organization. It’s been exposed by Haaretz,
the newspaper in Israel, as one of the leading promoters of false
information and also that they contaminated the crime scenes by moving
evidence around that actual professionals could have done. They also had
promoted the beheaded babies stories, etc.
So, The New York Times, they can’t find anyone who works in
the rape crisis centers, at the hospitals, among therapists, that are
coming forward and saying, “Yeah, we saw this,” or “We have
documentation of this,” so they go to people who already were known to
have promoted false information, and then they start relying on their
testimony to paint this tapestry, this notion that there was a
systematic rape regime. And in the New York Times article, they
do not ever disclose that their key witnesses have serious credibility
problems. So, this is, at a minimum, we are looking at a New York Times
piece that failed to inform its readers about severe credibility issues
among some of its premier “witnesses,” quote-unquote, that it put
forward in this story.
AMY GOODMAN:
I wanted to go to part of a podcast interview that Anat Schwartz did on
January 3rd, produced by Israel’s Channel 12. It was conducted in
Hebrew. Here, Anat talks about the difficulties and pressures in
reporting the story.
ANAT SCHWARTZ:
[translated] Maybe the standard that we have to meet may not be
realistic. Maybe it won’t be this complete big story that is told from
beginning to end and is complex and has details and nuances and
characters. And maybe we are aiming too high. Then there was the U.N.
woman and the silence, and there was a lot of preoccupation with it. So,
I said, “We’re missing momentum.” Maybe the U.N. isn’t addressing
sexual assault because no outlet will come out with a declaration about
what happened there, and that it will no longer be interesting. And at
some point, after one of the rewrites, we said, “OK, that’s it.” And
then I already informed all the people in the Israeli police who are
waiting to see what was going on. What? Was The New York Times not believing there were sexual assaults here? And I’m also in this place. I’m also an Israeli, but I also work for The New York Times. So, all the time, I’m like in this place between the hammer and the anvil.
AMY GOODMAN:
That’s Anat Schwartz, speaking on a podcast on January 3rd. She said
she felt “between the hammer and the anvil,” which, Jeremy, you choose
as the title of your piece.
Talk about the significance of that and, again, the relationship
between Anat Schwartz and other reporter, the young reporter, Adam
Sella.
JEREMY SCAHILL:
Well, another part of this story is that one of the main victims that
was featured in this is referred to as “the woman in the black dress.”
Gal Abdush is her name. And, in fact, her family members are the
individuals in the feature photo on the piece. And another thing that
we’ve learned from Israeli researchers who published this is that when
Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella went to a woman that had taken photographs
of Gal Abdush that day, they told this photographer that it was her duty
under Israeli hasbara to cooperate with The New York Times and let them have all of her photos. And ”hasbara”
is the term for public diplomacy, but what it really is is the notion
that Israel should engage in externally focused propaganda in order to
win over international audiences, primarily Western, the United States
and powerful countries, to Israel’s point of view. So, she is using this
term, going and trying to encourage someone to cooperate with The New York Times, not because The New York Times is, you know, the most important news organization in the world, but because it’s their duty under Israeli hasbara.
So, when she talks about being caught between the hammer and the anvil,
what she’s saying is she’s caught between her duty to be honest and a
journalist and her duty to serve the agenda of the Israeli state.
And her partner in this, Adam Sella, is the nephew of Anat Schwartz’s partner, and they’re not married. In fact, Amy, The New York Times,
they requested a correction from us, because we had initially said that
it was her nephew, which I think in the context of America and other
countries you would say. If you’re somebody’s longtime life partner, you
would say, “Oh, yeah, this is my nephew.” OK, they’re not blood
relatives, and they emphasize that she’s not married. Fine, we corrected
that.
My question is: Where are the corrections in The New York Times piece? The New York Times
has grave, grave mischaracterizations, sins of omission, reliance on
people who have no forensic or criminology credentials to be asserting
that there was a systematic rape campaign put in place here. And to
publish this article at a moment when Israel was intensifying, after
that brief pause where captives were exchanged — intensifying its
genocidal attack against the people of Gaza, this played a very, very
significant role. And the more we learn about this, the more we discover
that the reporting tactics that The New York Times used are
certainly not up to the standards that the newspaper claims to be
promoting. They will not issue any corrections on what has already been
documented to be very problematic sins of commission and omission in
this piece.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then come back to this conversation. We’re talking to Jeremy Scahill, senior reporter at The Intercept. Next up, he’ll be joined by Ryan Grim, who is the Washington bureau chief of The Intercept, and we want to talk to Ryan about what’s happening in The New York Times
now in response to this story, and the leak investigation that’s going
on, and why a podcast based on their story, their own podcast, The Daily, didn’t air. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “I’m from Here” by Amal Markus. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
We’re speaking with Intercept reporters Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Grim about their exposé into The New York Times article that was published at the end of December. They published another one in January.
We asked The New York Times for a response to your article,
and the international editor, Phil Pan, responded, quote, “Ms. Schwartz
was part of a rigorous reporting and editing process. She made valuable
contributions and we saw no evidence of bias in her work. We remain
confident in the accuracy of our reporting and stand by the team’s
investigation. But as we have said, her 'likes' of offensive and
opinionated social media posts, predating her work with us, are
unacceptable,” end-quote.
Ryan, if you can respond to this and talk about what’s going on internally in the Times, and also talk about this leak investigation that’s going on within the paper of record?
RYAN GRIM:
[inaudible] by her own admission, in that podcast interview she had,
significant violence, because there are two ways to think about what
happened on October 7th. The first way is that it was a day of
extraordinary mayhem and violence. The Israeli defenses melted away. Not
only did you have several thousand Hamas fighters stream across the
fence, but you also had hundreds of civilians, some associated with
gangs, come across. And in that context, the idea that there would be no
sexual assault is not taken seriously by pretty much anybody who
understands kind of war and violence. That’s one way to think about
October 7th.
The other way to think about it is that Hamas intentionally and
systematically designed a kind of strategy of weaponizing rape and
sexual violence. That was what Anat Schwartz and The New York Times
kind of believed going into the investigation. And oftentimes as
journalists, we have something that we think we’re going to be able to
prove, we report it out, and then we can’t quite get it. Like, it just
— we just don’t land the story. But what the Times did is they wrote the story anyway.
But that gets you then to The Daily episode. So, this article comes out at the very end of December. As The New York Times always does, its landmark pieces get turned into episodes of their flagship podcast, The Daily.
But immediately after the story came out, it started coming under
criticism, because, as Jeremy pointed out, a lot of the named subjects
of the story have enormous credibility problems. And so this starts
getting pointed out. Inside the Times, the producers of The Daily
have their own kind of fact-checking process where they go over the
stories. And the original script that was produced for that first
episode had to be discarded, because the producers there couldn’t stand
behind it, so they redrafted a second script, which had a lot of caveats
and was closer to the first version that I laid out just now, which is
an interesting podcast episode, and it’s something worth exploring. But
if they had aired that, it would have raised questions about why they
were walking away from the certainty of the original piece.
So, we reported on the kind of machinations inside The New York Times about this, the controversy, the disputes that were going on. And since then, as Vanity Fair reported, The New York Times
has — rather than reviewing the kind of journalism that went into this,
they are launching a leak investigation to try to figure out who’s
talking to us.
AMY GOODMAN: In February, one of the reporters behind The New York Times
investigation, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Jeffrey Gettleman,
spoke at a conference on conflict-related sexual violence hosted by
Columbia University. He talked about the piece.
JEFFREY GETTLEMAN:
I did some stories about hostages. And pretty soon, I mean, maybe, I
don’t know, within the first few days of this attack, we were hearing
reports of rape and mutilations of women. We heard it right away. And I
don’t — maybe people in this room remember those videos of the female
soldiers being taken away and the body of that one woman, Shani Louk, in
the back of a pickup truck half-naked. Right away, it just — it just
— there was obviously crimes against women that happened.
So, because, sadly, I have some experience doing this, I began
looking to see what we could find out. And I worked with two other
colleagues, and we interviewed almost 200 people over the course of two
months. And what we found, I don’t want to even use the word “evidence,”
because evidence is almost like a legal term that suggests you’re
trying to prove an allegation or prove a case in court. That’s not my
role. We all have our roles, and my role is to document.
AMY GOODMAN: So, I wanted to get a response to what he is saying there. He’s talking, by the way, to Sheryl Sandberg, the former COO of Meta, Facebook. Jeremy Scahill, if you can talk about what he sees his role as a reporter?
JEREMY SCAHILL:
I mean, this is an astonishing comment from Jeffrey Gettleman. I mean,
what is he talking about, that it’s not the job of journalists to
uncover evidence? If you’re going to have a headline that — by the way,
let me just say this. The “Screams Without Words” headline comes from a
source named Raz Cohen, who was at the Nova music festival, and he
claims to have witnessed a rape of a woman that he said was — and he’s a
special forces, Israeli special forces, veteran, and he has been very
adamant that the people who he saw committing this crime were not Hamas,
that they were ordinary people. And he has said that in numerous
interviews. But to have, then — and he’s the one who said it was like
“screams without words.” They’re using a headline from a person whose
testimony undermines the thesis of their blockbuster story. So, just to
put that on the table.
But for Gettleman to say that it’s not the job of journalists to
produce evidence, when you’re going to say, in the middle of a war,
where civilians are being starved and killed in an operation that is
under review now by the International Court of Justice for genocide — if
you’re going to then make an allegation that Hamas implemented a
systematic rape campaign, and you say it’s not your job to produce
evidence, then what is the job of a journalist in a situation like this?
Because, honestly, if you really read their piece carefully, much of it
is innuendo. Much of it is based on sources who have either credibility
issues or lack professional credentials to weigh in on these matters.
This is a grave, grave situation. This is one of the most important
pieces of journalism that has been produced during this war, and one of
the most consequential. And for the lead reporter, who himself has won
the Pulitzer and is an experienced war correspondent, to say that it’s
not the job of The New York Times to present evidence in an article asserting that Hamas systematically raped women, it’s astonishing. It’s astonishing.
AMY GOODMAN: And also, the prestigious Gorge Polk Award for Foreign Reporting this year was awarded to the staff of The New York Times, the citation reading, in part, quote “for unsurpassed coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas. Times
reporters used firsthand accounts to demonstrate how brutal and well
planned the Hamas attack was,” end-quote. And this article in question
that we’re talking about, “'Screams Without Words,'” was apparently part
of the package submitted by The New York Times that won the award. Ryan Grim, if you can talk about that and the dissent within the Times itself?
RYAN GRIM:
Before I answer that, I did want to add one thing to what Jeremy was
saying. It is remarkable that Sheryl Sandberg was on that panel with
Jeffrey Gettleman, because on December 4th — and Jeremy talked about how
this campaign was rolled out — on December 4th, Sheryl Sandberg and the
Israeli ambassador to the United Nations hosted an event at the U.N.
that launched the campaign against these feminist organizations for not
standing up and condemning, you know, Hamas’s systematic use of rape.
The next day, it was Bibi Netanyahu and then Biden who piled on that
campaign. That same day, on December 4th, Sheryl Sandberg penned an
op-ed in CNN. She also gave interviews or was quoted in The New York Times
on that same day in an article by Jeffrey Gettleman, Anat Schwartz and
Adam Sella. So, they were all working together on December 4th to launch
this campaign.
The December 4th article in The New York Times
had a much softer headline. It said, you know, “What Do We Know About
the Use of Sexual Violence” or “About Sexual Violence on October 7th?”
And people can go back and read that story. They reported at the time
that Israel had enormous amounts of forensic evidence that they were
going through that would establish all of the claims that they were
making. On December 8th or 9th, they very quietly corrected that story
to say, “Correction: Israel does not have forensic evidence to back up
these claims. It is relying on eyewitness testimony.” Anat Schwartz had
previously reported in the Times that they had, quote, “tens of
thousands of eyewitnesses” that they were going to bring forward to
make these claims. So, they front-loaded this campaign with these major
claims that there was forensic evidence and thousands of witnesses. Then
their final article comes out at the end of the month, and, to a casual
reader, you would come away from reading it, saying, “Well, they proved
it. They made their case. This barbaric terrorist organization did use
rape systematically against Israeli women.” And that was used to justify
the continuation of the war on Gaza.
But then, as you said, when The Daily tried to look closer
at the article, they realized they couldn’t actually stand up the claims
that were being made in it. And so, inside the Times, you have this extremely intense debate going on. And I think leaders at the Times
have been surprised. They’re used to external criticism, but the amount
of internal criticism they’re getting has them on the back foot.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Jeremy, we just have 30 seconds, but even the use of the term “terrorist” within The New York Times and the stepping back of one of the leading editorial directors?
JEREMY SCAHILL:
Yeah, I mean, there’s a lot of — there’s a lot of concern right now,
particularly among reporters who do work on an international level, that
there has been a politicization of this war internally within the
newsroom that is impacting the coverage. And I think it’s pretty clear.
You can see that in some of the journalism. And now The New York Times — The New York Times has —
AMY GOODMAN: Five seconds.
JEREMY SCAHILL:
— has ended up walking back the major claim that they made, and now
they’re saying hedge words: It may have occurred. That’s one of the most
significant things we uncovered here.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Grim, they are the co-authors of the piece, “'Between the Hammer and the Anvil.'”
