New York Magazine cut ties with political columnist Ross Barkan after an internal review uncovered 67 pieces that failed to properly attribute language, information, or sourcing from other writers, a staggering tally for a publication that bills itself as a standard-bearer of New York journalism.
The magazine confirmed the firing in a statement to the New York Post, saying it had completed its review of Barkan's work and would no longer publish his column. New York Magazine said it is now updating all 67 pieces with proper attribution to the writers whose work Barkan failed to credit.
The number dwarfs the initial scope of the scandal. When plagiarism allegations first surfaced in May, Barkan himself dismissed the matter as a dispute over just three columns out of roughly 150 he had written in a year. The final count, 67 out of what Barkan says were nearly 250 total pieces, tells a different story. More than one in four columns published under his name contained material that did not meet the magazine's attribution standards.
The trouble started when Drew Harwell, a Washington Post reporter, noticed striking similarities between the lead of one of his own stories and a lead Barkan wrote about the same subject in May. Harwell flagged the overlap on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. That single post set off a chain reaction.
NPR followed up and unearthed additional plagiarism allegations beyond what Harwell had identified. An earlier New York Post report detailed that at least three articles were initially under scrutiny, including one that closely mirrored a Washington Post report on Ben Shapiro's media empire. An NPR reporter used an AI model to identify two more alleged instances of plagiarism drawn from the Intercept and Compact Magazine.
New York Magazine confirmed at the time that it had launched a formal review. Spokesperson Lauren Starke told the Post in May, "We are conducting a review of the writer's prior work." That review, now concluded, produced a number, 67, that makes Barkan's early dismissal of the allegations look either dishonest or deeply self-unaware.
Barkan's statement to the Post tried to soften the blow. He cast the end of his column as a joint decision rather than a termination:
"We've decided to end the column and I send all the best to New York Magazine."
He acknowledged errors, up to a point. In a separate statement, Barkan said:
"In the course of nearly 250 pieces, there were times I should have been more careful with my citation. I'm sorry about these errors and will work to do better, more careful work in the future."
New York Magazine's own language was less diplomatic. The magazine said it "regret[s] that his work did not live up to our editorial standards," and apologized directly to the writers whose work went unattributed. That apology, directed at the people Barkan took from, not at Barkan, leaves little ambiguity about who the magazine considers the wronged parties.
Compare Barkan's tone now with his posture in May. When the allegations first broke, he issued what the Post described as "an angry denial." At the time, he posted online: "Between Crain's and New York Magazine in the last calendar year, I have published something like 150 columns. A story is currently being written about *3.*" Three became 67.
Barkan is not just any political columnist. He has been one of the most visible media boosters of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. The two men's professional relationship predates Mamdani's political career. In 2018, Barkan ran for a Brooklyn seat in the New York State Senate and lost. Mamdani served as his campaign manager.
Years later, when Mamdani won his own mayoral race in 2025, Barkan celebrated the result in a column for The Nation, calling the victory "seismic." Barkan also has a forthcoming book about Mamdani, a detail that underscores just how intertwined his journalism and his political loyalties have become.
That kind of entanglement raises obvious questions about editorial independence. A columnist writing admiringly about a politician who once managed his campaign is already operating in murky territory. A columnist doing so while lifting other writers' work without credit is operating in territory that no serious publication should tolerate.
Barkan told the Post he is continuing to write for The Nation, a left-leaning magazine where he maintains a column. "I am, at a more considered pace, writing a new column for The Nation," he said. The Post asked The Nation whether it would continue to employ Barkan in light of the plagiarism findings. As of the Post's report, The Nation had not responded.
That silence is worth watching. If 67 instances of failed attribution at one publication do not prompt a review at another, it will say as much about The Nation's standards as it does about Barkan's.
Barkan's bylines have also appeared in the New York Times, and he has written both fiction and nonfiction books. Whether those outlets or publishers conduct their own reviews remains an open question.
The plagiarism scandal lands at a difficult moment for New York Magazine. The publication recently drew sharp criticism for a cover story that critics called anti-Israel, a controversy that raised its own questions about editorial judgment. Now the magazine must explain how 67 columns with attribution problems made it past its editors over the life of Barkan's tenure.
Editors exist to catch exactly this kind of failure. A single lapse might be a fluke. Sixty-seven lapses suggest a systemic breakdown, either in the review process, in the incentive structure that rewards prolific output over careful sourcing, or both.
New York Magazine said it is updating the affected pieces with proper attribution. That is a corrective step, but it comes only after an outside reporter, not the magazine's own editorial staff, noticed the problem. The writers whose work Barkan borrowed without credit had to wait for a Washington Post reporter scrolling through leads to get the acknowledgment they were owed.
Accountability in journalism is supposed to start at home. When it takes a competitor's reporter and an AI plagiarism scan to surface what your own editors missed across dozens of columns, the institution has a credibility problem that outlasts any single writer's firing.
