The New York Times removed a sentence from a Jerusalem report after critics said it implied Israelis' victimhood from the Oct. 7, 2023 attack was a matter of "perception." Isabel Kershner's article noted deep divisions in Israel over responsibility for pre-attack failures and cited official casualty figures of about 1,200 killed and 250 taken hostage. Freelance writer Eitan Fischberger's social post made the line go viral, prompting an editors' note calling the phrasing an "editing error" and its removal.
NYT Removes Controversial Line After Backlash Over Wording on Oct. 7 Victims
AP Photo/Kin Cheung
The New York Times quietly removed a sentence from a Jerusalem dispatch after conservative commentators and social media users criticized language that appeared to treat Israelis' victimhood from the Oct. 7, 2023 attack as a matter of "perception." The original passage provoked a swift online backlash and prompted an editors' note from the paper.
The story, filed from Jerusalem by Isabel Kershner under the headline "After Accolades Abroad, an Israeli Documentary Faces a Backlash at Home," examined divisions within Israel over responsibility for the intelligence and policy failures that preceded the Hamas attack and the broader war. In summarizing public sentiment, the article originally included the line: "But Israelis still largely view themselves as the victims of Oct. 7."
The piece reiterated official Israeli casualty figures: the militants' assault killed about 1,200 people and roughly 250 were taken hostage, making Oct. 7 the deadliest single day in the country's history.
Freelance researcher and writer Eitan Fischberger flagged the sentence on social media, asking, "What the f**k is this, @nytimes?" His post was rapidly shared, drawing attention from pundits and commentators across platforms. Conservative voices amplified the criticism: CNN conservative commentator Scott Jennings called the passage "an abomination," while Fox News analyst Brit Hume wrote, "Good question."
"Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article included a statement that was intended to convey Israelis' perception of the government's military response to the Oct. 7 terror attack in relation to the attacks, but inadvertently suggested that Israelis' experience as terror victims was a matter of perception. It has been removed from the article."
The Times' publicity office later issued an editors' note acknowledging the wording as an "editing error" and announcing the sentence had been removed. Mediaite first reported the update and compiled reactions after the passage circulated online.
While the editors' note clarifies the paper's intended meaning — which was to describe perceptions of the government's military response rather than to question victims' suffering — the incident underscores how brief phrasing in high-profile outlets can rapidly spark controversy in a polarized media environment.
Help us improve.
