admin
The New York Times ran a story pointing to a public list of Michigan Jewish voters who say they back Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El‑Sayed. Now conservatives and social‑media sleuths are poking holes in that list. The issue isn’t the politics — it’s the paperwork. And when a major paper leans on a sketchy Google Doc, readers deserve answers.
The list that set off alarm bells
The recent development is simple: critics found what look like prank names and many unverifiable entries in the very Google Doc the New York Times used to report Jewish support for El‑Sayed in the Michigan Senate race. That document has been shared widely. It is supposed to show hundreds of Jews pledging to vote for the Democratic nominee, but quick checks by commenters turned up obvious problems.
Prank names, initials and an alleged deceased signer
Examples flagged by online commentators include blatant joke names such as the one that would make a middle‑schooler snicker, entries listed with only an initial for first or last name, and at least one name that has been alleged to belong to a deceased person. More than 200 entries appear to use initials only, which makes independent verification almost impossible. If a signature list is supposed to prove community support, it should be a lot harder for jokers and ghosts to slip in.
Why the Times’ sourcing matters — and why readers should care
Newspapers are supposed to check before they publish. The point of vetting is not to score gotchas; it is to protect readers from being misled. This matters especially when the subject touches on sensitive issues in the Jewish community — Israel policy, safety concerns, and trust in civic institutions. El‑Sayed is the Democratic Senate nominee in Michigan, and voters deserve honest, verified reporting on who is really speaking for Jewish Michiganders and why.
What should happen next
Here’s a short checklist: archive the public document and capture its edit history; ask the Times what vetting it did and whether it will correct or clarify; ask the El‑Sayed campaign whether it collected or vetted the list and whether it stands by every name; and have independent Jewish organizations say if they were consulted. Until those steps are taken, readers should treat the “Jewish leaders” list with skepticism. If the goal was to show broad Jewish backing, sloppy sourcing just proves the opposite: sloppy sourcing.
