I think they’re talking about the Hamas rape allegations.

A big part of the art of bad faith-arguing is the taking one semi-related kernel of truth and inflating it like a balloon one step at a time until its massively outsized implied impact can eclipse the thing you want to disagree with, but which you can’t or won’t just deal with head-on.

In this case, this person maybe doesn’t want to make the attempt to criticize this story directly, so instead they go with:

• Some of the allegations of rape in the NYT’s reporting were probably wrong (true)
• Therefore they shouldn’t have published the story (debatable – literally, there was heated debate about it internally)
• And furthermore all the allegations and the main thrust of the story were wrong (untrue – see the UN’s report on sexual violence during the attack for example (content warning)).
• Therefore because a couple, but not all, of the accounts they published in that one story turned out to be suspect, the New York Times as a whole and every single thing it publishes is crappy
• Therefore this story is crappy and I don’t even have to say why I think so; I can just say “rape allegations!” and call back to #1 and all the rest is implied.

I actually do think that the New York Times has a massive pro-Israel anti-Palestine bias and that that colored that particular story, them choosing to report it, and how. But it doesn’t mean even that the story was falsified or that Hamas didn’t rape anybody, let alone whatever else about the other 99.whatever% of the stories they publish.

• The Intercept, Feb. 28: “Between the Hammer and the Anvil” The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Exposé
• Wikipedia: Screams Without Words