New York Magazine has initiated an internal review of columnist Ross Barkan’s work following multiple accusations that he lifted language and structure from published stories by reporters at The Washington Post, NPR, and Compact Magazine without proper attribution.
The allegations span at least three separate columns. According to reports, the controversy became public on May 14 when a Washington Post reporter named Drew Harwell posted a side-by-side comparison of his article about Ben Shapiro with Barkan’s New York Magazine piece that appeared shortly after. The implication was clear: Barkan’s lead paragraph closely mirrored the structure and substance of the Post’s original reporting.
Since then, New York Magazine confirmed it is reviewing Barkan’s entire body of work across both its New York Magazine and Crain’s New York Business publications. NPR correspondent Bobby Allyn reported additional findings indicating language that appeared to mirror work from The Intercept and Compact Magazine. Compact Magazine editor Matthew Schmitz stated that Barkan had heavily plagiarized one of their writers, arguing that simply providing a link to the original story does not justify using others’ prose.
One of the flagged columns was quietly updated with added citations after accusations surfaced publicly. Barkan has denied plagiarism and described the controversy as “ridiculous,” while also calling the scrutiny “overblown.” He characterized the situation as “one of the dumber controversies imaginable.”
The incident carries particular irony, as one of the pieces in question involved reporting on Ben Shapiro, co-founder of Daily Wire—a figure frequently targeted by legacy media outlets that position themselves as gatekeepers of journalistic standards.
New York Magazine has not disclosed the scope or timeline for its review. However, the pattern is clear: elite media outlets often scrutinize conservative commentators with intense detail and demand retractions, but when plagiarism occurs within their own ranks, they tend to minimize the issue and hope it fades quickly. Barkan’s defense—that only three pieces were flagged—has been challenged by the fact that the allegations came from three separate outlets in a short period, suggesting a recurring pattern rather than an isolated incident. The outcome of New York Magazine’s review will provide insight into how seriously the outlet takes its own standards when applied to its staff.