Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

New York Times publishes Islamophobic ad by anti-Islam group

NYT.com

Visit The New York Times’ homepage today, and before the page loads you may be shown a 15-second full-screen advertisement warning that unnamed “Islamist groups” are “undermining America’s security, liberty, and free speech,” with a photo of the World Trade Center towers.

The ad’s implicitly Islamophobic message, suggesting that Muslim-Americans may be enemies within, and its timing during the opening of the September 11 Memorial Museum, raise questions about why the Times decided to allow it such prominent display on its homepage. The advertising unit, called an interstitial, is typically one of the most expensive because it required users to view the ad or click away before they can see the New York Times homepage.

A spokesperson for the Times, asked why the ad was permitted under the company’s policy against ads that are gratuitously offensive on racial, religious, or ethnic grounds, responded that the ad had been internally reviewed and approved. The spokesperson added that the company had decided to slightly alter the ad’s wording. “However upon reexamination, we think the phrase ‘radical Islamists’ would have been better than ‘Islamists’ in this advertisement,” she explained. “The advertiser agreed to the change and the ad has been updated on nytimes.com.”

The ad is sponsored by a group called the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which says it researches “radical Islamist terror groups,” but in practice primarily argues that mainstream Muslim-Americans and Muslim-American groups are secretly terrorists who are plotting against the US.

Here is the ad as it appeared when attempting to load NYTimes.com:

Boqetl3cmaioh3t

The group also purchased a full-page display ad in Wednesday's print edition New York Times. The all-text ad opened by "commemorating today's official opening of the National September 11 Memorial Museum." It went on to warn at great length that mainstream Muslim-American groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations were in fact part of a clandestine "radical Islamist" vanguard of a "holy war" that supports terrorism and wishes to continue the efforts of the September 11 attacks. "This is the new form of the jihadist threat we face," the ad reads.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has long been criticized as Islamophobic for its campaign against what it describes as a clandestine effort by “radical Muslims” — which they allege includes mainstream rights groups — to infiltrate and destroy the United States from within. The group was founded in 1995 by Steven Emerson, whose 2002 book is titled “American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us.”

Emerson has a reputation for campaigning against Muslim-American groups and for paranoia; a 2002 story reported that he often required visitors to his office to wear a blindfold. Former CIA counterterrorism director Vincent Cannistraro said of him, “He’s trying to say people who move to this country and set up charities and think tanks and are associated with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, that there’s some kind of connection between them and Sept. 11, that there’s a liaison or support network. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

A Times spokesperson told Digiday, “The ad was reviewed internally and complies with our policy on advocacy ads.” The company’s policy, copied below, prohibits ad that are “gratuitously offensive on racial, religious or ethnic grounds.”

We believe that the broad principles of freedom of the press confer on us an obligation to keep our advertising columns open to all points of view. Therefore, The New York Times accepts advertisements in which groups or individuals comment on public or controversial issues. We make no judgments on an advertiser’s arguments, factual assertions or conclusions. We accept advocacy/opinion advertisements regardless of our editorial position on any given subject.

We do not, however, accept advocacy advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature, that seek to comment on private disputes or that contain vulgar or indecent language.

We do not accept advertisements that are gratuitously offensive on racial, religious or ethnic grounds or that are considered to be in poor taste. We do not verify, nor do we vouch for, statements of purported fact in advocacy/opinion advertisements. We reserve the right, however, to require documentation of factual claims when it is deemed necessary.

See More:

More in archives

archives
Ethics and Guidelines at Vox.comEthics and Guidelines at Vox.com
archives
By Vox Staff
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health careThe Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health care
Supreme Court

Given the Court’s Republican supermajority, this case is unlikely to end well for trans people.

By Ian Millhiser
archives
On the MoneyOn the Money
archives

Learn about saving, spending, investing, and more in a monthly personal finance advice column written by Nicole Dieker.

By Vox Staff
archives
Total solar eclipse passes over USTotal solar eclipse passes over US
archives
By Vox Staff
archives
The 2024 Iowa caucusesThe 2024 Iowa caucuses
archives

The latest news, analysis, and explainers coming out of the GOP Iowa caucuses.

By Vox Staff
archives
The Big SqueezeThe Big Squeeze
archives

The economy’s stacked against us.

By Vox Staff