The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

I’ll be honest with you: I don’t read The New York Times anymore.

After spreading the Al-Ahli hospital libel just 10 days after October 7 — that Israel supposedly bombed a hospital, killing 500 people — followed by a blink-and-you-missed-it editor’s note when it turned out to be a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket in a parking lot, I was done. I stopped visiting the Times website, deleted the app, and never looked back.

I only keep up with the depths of the Times’ antipathy towards Jews and Israel by reading watchdog organizations and allied content creators.

Anti-Zionist libels – like the hospital bomber libel, the Gaza famine libel, the baby-killer libel, and the big three of genocide, apartheid, and colonizer — have already led to lethal violence against Jews across America – in Washington, DC; in Boulder, Colorado; in California — and across the world, including Australia, the UK, and Dubai.

But the Times is too morally corrupt to change voluntarily — even in response to public criticism. Therefore, people of principle — Jewish and non-Jewish alike — must force their hand. And for a media company, the clearest incentive is money.

Based on public ad reporting, visible sponsorships, and known heavy spenders, a triangulated assessment suggests The New York Times’ top advertisers by estimated ad spend likely include: Microsoft, Amazon, JPMorgan Chase, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Delta, American Express, Rolex, Louis Vuitton, Dior, and Netflix.

Microsoft builds strategic products with Israeli talent. Amazon runs an AWS region in Tel Aviv and continues to expand R&D in Israel. JPMorgan has served Israeli clients for decades and built a Tel Aviv presence around Israeli tech.

So why are these companies still rewarding a company that knowingly spreads anti-Zionist libels that endanger Jews?

It is past time for Jewish and allied board members, executives, and corporate leaders to use their influence — in the boardroom and beyond — to pull advertising dollars from The New York Times in response to its biased coverage.

Why spend money on a channel with declining influence – especially one that has lost the trust of so many people? Why not embrace alternative places to invest ad dollars (creator partnerships, entertainment/product placement, community sponsorships)? There are credible, higher-return alternatives to legacy media advertising.

Do these brands really want to be associated with the libels that The New York Times is publishing?

The New York Times must retract Nicholas Kristof’s disgusting libel. It must also reveal the editorial timeline behind Kristof’s op-ed running the day before the highly-anticipated and verified report on Hamas’ October 7 sexual violence.

And there is more work to do. The Times must retrain its entire editorial staff to stop actively spreading libels that purge Jews and mark us for violence.

Until these failures are fully reckoned with — and The New York Times fundamentally changes course — principled people and institutions should demand that advertisers pull their dollars away from the paper.

F. Scott Piro is a communications leader, Jewish advocate and content creator exposing the anti-Zionist hate movement and decoding anti-Jewish rhetoric for thousands online.