The Times has it out for Zohran Mamdani. The record is clear. It is time to examine receipts.
The latest attack on him is journalistically unconscionable, and so is the editors’ reaction to legitimate criticism. In a story played by its editors on its home page and boosted by its reporter as his scoop — when it was obviously planted by the right-wing based on the theft of documents from Columbia — The Times said teenaged Mamdani ticked boxes for Asian and Black or African-American on his application, implying he was trying to cheat — to DEI — his way in.
Never mind that Mamdani was born in Africa, that his father was on the university’s faculty and so his origins were clear, that he was 18 years old, that he was not admitted, and that, as Professor Siva Vaidhyanathan puts it,
Many people from Africa come to the US, find themselves baffled by our “racial” check-boxes, and just wing it. Many Eritreans, Malians, Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians, Malagaseys, and South Africans don’t identify as “Black” regardless of skin color. But they are African. We make people make dumb choices.
I would say The Times was used, but that would imply that it did not willingly and wittingly make itself an accessory to the smear.
Jamelle Bouie, just about The Times last saving grace, criticized the story, suggesting on the socials that journalists should inform readers when their anonymous source is a Nazi. He obviously was chastised by editors, for he soon deleted what he dared say.
That Times policy is itself a journalistic travesty, for it decrees that no one is above criticism from The Timesbut The Times is above criticism even from within.
Of course, this comes after The Times‘Anti-Endorsement of Mandani. After The (former New York) Times said it would no longer endorse candidates in local elections, it was stuck, wanting to throw its weight after sexual harasser Andrew Cuomo against the Muslim socialist. It couldn’t endorse Cuomo but said many New Yorkers would be voting for him because of his strong policy record and many endorsements: the non-endorsement-endorsement.
The Editorial Board’s policy of no longer telling New Yorkers whom to vote for did not stop The Times from telling them whom to vote against. “We do not believe that Mr. Mamdani deserves a spot on New Yorkers’ ballots.”
The Times’ hostility to Mamdani is not limited to its editorial page, nor is it consistent. Some of its columnists have written positively about him and there has been some favorable coverage. The Times has also covered the right’s odious attacks on him and his faith and background. But much has been shameful….
Upon his phenomenal victory in the primary, The Times first sought out everyone it could find who opposes him, as if any Democrat, any New Yorker, anyone should give a good fuck what Trumpist Bill Ackman thinks.
The Times wishes to stir fear and division. Business leaders “fear Mamdani.”
The Times speaks with real estate executives as well as campaigners for tenants’ rights, but the headline says only that Mamdani “strikes fear in the real estate industry.” The piece does not point to The Times’ own interview in which the candidate said he has learned the importance of private-sector development in solving New York’s housing crisis. He advocates zoning more housing around public transit and reducing requirements such as parking. But fear makes for better headlines, as apparently does emphasizing the concerns of the rich. I’d like to read a report about what tenants themselves have to say.
Out of a fairly wide-ranging Meet the Press interview, what did the newspaper of the rich — I mean of record — choose to report on in its headline?
The Times felt compelled to add: “Mr. Mamdani, a democratic socialist, asserted that he is not a communist.” Somebody alert HUAC.
The Times chooses to focus on “a fractured Democratic Party.” Sure, there are fractures; there always are in democracies, for that is the point of them. The Times could have instead focused on the remarkable unity shown between a Democratic Muslim, Mondani, and a Democratic Jew, Brad Lander, that made this victory possible. But unity doesn’t sell newspapers.
Similarly, The Times says Mamdani’s victory “spotlights a deepening rupture among U.S. Jews.” More likely, it spotlights The Times’ inability or unwillingness to cover that rupture over Netanyahu’s wars. But that’s another story.
Odd that The Times characterizes a campaign by a Muslim candidate for public office as “delicate.” Imagine if The Times said running as a Jewish candidate or a Black candidate or a woman candidate were “delicate.” (But then, in the day, it probably did.)
The list-addicted Times tells us that these are the five things voters should know about Mamdani as presumptive nominee. The first is that he has a short track record; the second, his views on a controversial issue far from New York — Israel and Gaza; the third, he’s Muslim; the fourth, he is the supposed creation of that odd thing The Times still cannot grok, social media.
The old farts’ daily still thinks social media is a new and puzzling thing…
Only at the end, at the fifth of the five things New Yorkers should know about the leading candidate to be their mayor, is there mention of his “pithy policy solutions” — cheaper food, free buses, free child care.
The Times dismisses what Mamdani stands for and what brought out voters (from the “Commie Corridor”) in his favor as simplistic and unrealistic.
The Times asks — just asks — whether when these simplistic, unrealistic, foolish, Democratic New Yorkers — the people formerly known as Times readers until The Times pissed them all off — are shooting themselves on Fifth Avenue.
Looks to me like The Times is itching to give its non-endorsement-endorsement next to the worst mayor among so many awful mayors, quoting “business leaders” praising Adams for going on Fox and Friends to attack Mamdani.
In the end, The Times is simply confused, making another pathetic listicle seeking ways of making sense of Mamdani’s victory.
I would suggest that The Times look in the mirror, but that would violate its policy, for those inside who try to do that are reprimanded and forced to delete their legitimate criticism.
Truth is, more than anything, Mamdani reveals just how out of touch The New York Times is with its city, with youth, with women, with Democrats and progressives, with under-represented communities, with the working class and poor, with tenants, with bus-riders, with people who buy their own groceries, with dogs, with the anti-Trump resistance … with the future.
But he wears nice suits.
