Early Friday morning in Manhattan, the Greenwich Village apartment building of The New York Times executive editor Joseph Kahn became the latest site of protest over the newspaper’s coverage of the ongoing war in Gaza. Red paint was splashed across the steps and front entrance, while a stark message in black spray paint—"Joe Kahn Lies Gaza Dies"—was scrawled on the pavement at the building’s entrance. The scene drew immediate attention from passersby, some of whom watched as efforts began to clean the damage from the building’s exterior.
According to NBC News and The Hill, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) received calls about the graffiti shortly before 5 a.m. on Friday, August 29, 2025. Officers responded quickly to the Greenwich Village address, observing the paint on the steps and doors as reported in their official statement. Despite their swift arrival, no arrests were made as of press time, and the investigation remains ongoing.
This act of vandalism was not an isolated incident. Just a month earlier, the headquarters of The New York Times in Times Square was similarly targeted. In that case, red paint was also used to deface the building, and the message left behind read, "NYT lies Gaza dies." The repetition of this phrase, now personalized to target Kahn, signals a persistent and personal frustration among certain activist groups regarding the newspaper’s reporting on the Gaza conflict.
Photos from Friday’s scene show the stark contrast of red paint against the otherwise subdued facade of the building, while the black spray-painted message at the foot of the steps leaves little doubt about the vandals’ intent. As people walked by, some stopped to take in the scene, while others moved on briskly, perhaps accustomed to the city’s frequent displays of protest. One independent journalist who approached two men at the scene was rebuffed when he asked if they would remove a board covering the message. He was told, "none of your business," and instructed to move along, as reported by Freedom News TV.
In response to the attack, a spokesperson for The New York Times condemned the vandalism in no uncertain terms. Charlie Stadtlander, the executive director for media relations and communications at the Times, stated to The Hill, "People are free to disagree with The New York Times’s reporting but vandalism and targeting of individuals and their families crosses a line and we will work with authorities to address it." The statement reflects the paper’s position that while robust debate and criticism are part and parcel of journalism, personal attacks and intimidation are unacceptable.
The targeting of Joseph Kahn, who took the helm as executive editor in 2022, underscores the intense scrutiny and polarized reactions that major news organizations face, particularly when covering contentious international events. According to Breitbart News, Kahn’s appointment was seen both as a continuation of the Times’s commitment to diversity and as a potential pivot point for the paper’s editorial direction. While some in the newsroom expressed optimism that Kahn would "strike an even balance," others wondered how he would navigate the pressures from both within and outside the organization.
The recent vandalism is emblematic of the broader climate surrounding media coverage of the Israel-Gaza war. Advocacy groups and individuals with strong opinions on the conflict have increasingly sought to influence, or at least publicly challenge, mainstream reporting. As NBC News reported, a spokesperson for the Times acknowledged after the earlier incident at the Times Square headquarters, "As an independent news organization, we receive criticism regularly from those representing entrenched perspectives, hoping to change our reporting." The spokesperson continued, "While we support the right of groups and individuals to express their point of view, we will not let advocacy groups sway us from covering the conflict fully and fairly."
These statements highlight the delicate balancing act that major media outlets must perform. On one hand, they must remain open to public scrutiny and criticism, recognizing that their reporting has real-world consequences and that no coverage is above reproach. On the other, they must also protect their staff and maintain editorial independence, resisting efforts—however forceful or dramatic—to dictate the content or tone of their reporting.
For New Yorkers, the sight of red paint and political graffiti is, unfortunately, not uncommon. Yet, when such acts target private residences, especially those of prominent journalists, the stakes feel higher. The message is no longer addressed solely to an institution but to an individual, blurring the line between public protest and personal intimidation.
It’s worth noting that these acts of vandalism come at a time when the role of the press—and the safety of journalists—has become a subject of heated debate both in the United States and abroad. Around the world, journalists face mounting pressures, from legal threats and online harassment to physical danger. In this context, the targeting of Joseph Kahn’s home is a stark reminder of the risks that come with leading a globally recognized news organization.
The NYPD’s ongoing investigation has yet to yield any arrests or public identification of suspects. Authorities have not indicated whether they believe the two incidents—the attack on the Times’s headquarters and the attack on Kahn’s apartment building—are directly linked or the work of the same individuals or group. For now, the city’s law enforcement agencies are working in coordination with The New York Times to address both the immediate aftermath and the broader security concerns raised by these events.
Meanwhile, the Times has reiterated its commitment to covering the Gaza conflict "fully and fairly," despite the pressure. The newspaper’s leadership has made it clear that it will not be swayed by acts of vandalism or intimidation, emphasizing its role as an independent news organization that serves a diverse and often divided public.
For Joseph Kahn, these recent attacks are a vivid illustration of the challenges—and, some might say, the perils—of steering one of the world’s most influential newspapers through turbulent times. As debates over media bias and the responsibilities of the press continue to rage, the events in Greenwich Village serve as a sobering reminder of just how personal—and how fraught—these battles can become.
As the investigation proceeds and the paint fades from the steps of Kahn’s building, questions remain about how best to balance the right to protest with the need to protect journalists and their families from targeted intimidation. For now, the story stands as a testament to the enduring tensions between the press, its critics, and the public it seeks to inform.
