“Who Are the Biggest Donors to Trump and Harris?” a New York Times headline asks, over an article about “the billionaires that are powering the campaigns.”

The first two donors mentioned in the article are Tim Mellon and Elon Musk. Neither one is Jewish. Also mentioned is Linda McMahon. She’s not Jewish either. The article further mentions Reid Hoffman, who describes himself as a “mystical atheist,” and Dick and Liz Uihlein, who aren’t Jewish, either.

So what in the world was the New York Times thinking when the newspaper chose to illustrate its story about “the most influential givers” with a photograph of six Israeli flags, former President Trump, Dr. Miriam Adelson, and an unidentified bearded man wearing a kippa?

Peter Dreier, a professor at Occidental College, wrote in a Facebook post that the photo selection was “egregious.”

Dreier wrote, “The Times story was not about religion or ethnicity. It was about the ‘biggest donors.’’By using that photo, the Times played into ugly antisemitic stereotypes. You’d think that some editor up the chain of command would have noticed this and replaced the photo. But there it is, in blue and white.”

At a moment when Columbia University’s Antisemitism Task Force is trying to educate students about “antisemitic tropes about Jewish wealth and hidden power,” for the Times to come out with a picture choice like this one is pretty clumsy.

The newspaper already ran a front-page profile of Adelson describing her as “rabidly partisan,” prompting a formal complaint to the paper from Eric Goldstein, the CEO of the UJA-Federation of New York, a longtime partner of the New York Times in its Neediest Cases Fund.

Goldstein also complained about a Times online headline that said US Rep. Jamaal Bowman had been “Overtaken by Flood of Pro-Israel Money,” which Goldstein said fed “a dreadful antisemitic stereotype.”

No one is saying the Times should not cover money in politics or even that the Times shouldn’t cover the pro-Israel lobby’s campaign contributions with the same level of energy that it devotes to coverage of other political interest groups. But to take a general overview of campaign finance and presidential politics and to package it, visually, with Israeli flags and a visibly observant Jew, is outrageous. It plays into harmful stereotypes. It also provides voters an inaccurate and skewed picture of the reality of the situation, which is that there’s also plenty of non-Jewish money flowing into the campaigns.

The Times highlights the donors giving tens of millions of dollars, or, in Mellon’s case, $100 million, to the Trump or Harris campaigns. But how might one estimate the financial value of putting the New York Times Company, with its market capitalization of more than $8 billion and its annual revenues of more than $2 billion, behind a campaign of hostility to Israel and against the Jewish people? The Times executive editor, Joseph Kahn, recently claimed credit for the Biden-Harris administration’s decision to cut off supplies to Israel of 2,000-pound bombs.

If donors back a presidential candidate to air campaign commercials, the funding is disclosed, and the donors are subjected to mockery by the Times. But when the Times management uses its newspaper to advance its political agenda, it gets far less scrutiny.

When the Intercept sought to depict the Times as biased towards Israel because of Kahn’s history, Kahn made a point of publicly clarifying, “I’m not an active Jew.” Active or inactive, he might want to check into who picked the photo for the presidential campaign donor story. And he might want to encourage the editors responsible to use better judgment the next time around.