Murphy Sues Times for $50 Million Over Genocide Memo
A Manhattan lawsuit alleges The New York Times restricted use of the word 'genocide' to hide Israel's conduct in Gaza.
Updated on Nov. 6, 2026 in Law
Timothy Murphy has sued The New York Times in Manhattan Supreme Court, seeking $50 million in damages. The suit, filed in April, alleges the paper forbade use of the word 'genocide' to conceal Israel's actions.
Why it matters
The case puts newsroom style guidance on contested war terminology before a court, testing whether editorial language choices can support a claim of deception. For New York City readers, it raises questions about how a major local newspaper handles coverage of the Israel-Gaza war.
Murphy filed the suit in Manhattan Supreme Court in April seeking $50 million. The Times had not immediately responded to a request for comment, and no ruling has been reported.
The players
Timothy Murphy
Murphy is the plaintiff who brought the suit against The New York Times over its coverage guidance.
The New York Times
The New York Times is a major daily newspaper based in Manhattan that is the defendant in the lawsuit.
The details
The lawsuit alleges that a November 2023 memo by Philip Pan and Susan Wessling told journalists to limit use of 'genocide' and 'ethnic cleansing' and to avoid the phrase 'occupied territory' for Palestinian land. The memo was reported by The Intercept in 2024, and Murphy demands the Times place a warning label on articles he calls censored.
Timeline
November 2023: Times editors wrote the internal memo on terminology.
2024: The Intercept reported the leaked memo.
April 2026: Murphy filed the lawsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court.
Legal Context
The suit extends the 2024 Intercept report on the Times memo by converting an internal style guide into the basis of a $50 million damages claim in a New York court. It tests whether editorial word-choice guidance on the Israel-Gaza war can support a claim of deliberate public deception.
The outcome could shape how New York newsrooms are permitted to handle contested terminology in war coverage. Readers of the Times may see its editorial choices on such terms become a matter of public legal scrutiny.
The takeaway
Editorial word choices on contested events can become the subject of legal claims, so readers may find value in comparing how different outlets describe the same events. Checking the terminology a publication uses alongside its reporting can help readers judge its coverage.
Further reading
For related court cases and legal developments, see Law coverage in New York City.
