I have written eleven opinion pieces for The New York Times across 35 years. I still read it. I write what follows with no joy: while I have watched it become increasingly partisan in its news coverage over the decades, no topic has made its loss of balance clearer to me than its handling of Israel since October 7. This week the Times published a sentence suggesting that Israeli victimhood over the 2023 Hamas terror attack was not a fact, but a "matter of perception." It only added an Editors' Note after furious backlash, much of it here on X. I have written corrections myself. A sentence like that doesn't slip past a reporter, an editor, and a copy desk by accident. The underlying problem is that it did not set off an alarm until readers outside the building made noise. And that was simply the latest example. In May, the paper's Opinion section ran a column alleging Israeli forces used dogs to rape Palestinian detainees, built on sourcing no other serious outlet had corroborated. The Times's own executive editor later said the newsroom "wouldn't have done that exact piece." Now there's data behind the pattern. A peer-reviewed Yale study of 1,559 Times articles on the war found the word "Israel" appeared more than three times as often as "Hamas," and that 1,423 of those articles mentioned neither Israeli casualties after Oct. 7 nor Hamas combatants killed in the war. "Paper of record" was never a hereditary title. It was a claim about earned trust. I am not sure anyone still believes it. My full article at Just the Facts: justthefacts.media/p/the-pap…