By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The New York Times faced criticism for a story questioning mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s racial self-identification on a college application, a story that quickly drew fire. The article, which revealed Mamdani, who is of Indian descent but born in Uganda, had checked multiple race boxes, was fueled by hacked information from a source linked to white supremacist views. Critics, including prominent journalists, deemed the story unnewsworthy, especially given the compromised source and the candidate’s explanation of his diverse background. This incident, along with the Times’s editorial stance against Mamdani, raised concerns about the newspaper’s perceived bias against his candidacy.
Read the original article here
Is the New York Times trying to wreck Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral bid? The overwhelming sentiment, based on the available commentary, is a resounding “yes.” The perception is that the Times, along with other major media outlets, is actively working to undermine Mamdani’s campaign, displaying a clear bias against his candidacy.
This alleged bias is not viewed as subtle. It’s characterized as blatant and transparent, with the Times allegedly pushing editorial opinions under the guise of objective reporting. The criticism suggests the newspaper is prioritizing the interests of the wealthy, powerful, and establishment figures, who perceive Mamdani as a threat to their established order. This framing puts Mamdani in direct opposition to the status quo, leading many to believe the Times is strategically attempting to paint him in a negative light.
The strategies used by the Times, according to the comments, include downplaying his campaign, highlighting negative aspects, and attempting to associate him with controversial issues, specifically regarding accusations of antisemitism, which are believed to be falling flat with voters. The references to the use of race/ethnicity check boxes on his Columbia application, reminiscent of attacks on Obama’s birth certificate, suggest an attempt to create suspicion and doubt about Mamdani’s background and character. This is further evidenced by the fact that former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan, herself, has been critical of the publication’s behavior, offering insider knowledge to those on the outside looking in.
The comments delve into the Times’s editorial practices, suggesting a shift away from intellectual rigor and towards editorial intrusion. The loss of figures like Paul Krugman, who has criticized editorial interference, is cited as a sign of decline. The emphasis on speculative pieces, designed to push the editorial staff’s opinions, at the expense of fact-driven reporting, is considered a key factor in the Times’s alleged bias.
The overarching argument is that the Times is acting as a mouthpiece for corporate interests, attempting to sabotage Mamdani’s bid in favor of candidates more aligned with the establishment. This is not seen as an isolated incident, but rather as part of a broader pattern of media behavior aimed at suppressing progressive voices. The comments draw parallels to the treatment of other progressive figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The desperation of the establishment to see Mamdani fail is seen as palpable, with the commentary highlighting the endorsement of other candidates by former elected officials. The assertion is that the Times, and other media outlets, are attempting to control the narrative, and manipulate voters.
The response to this perceived manipulation is a rallying cry for Mamdani, with many commenters stating they are, or would be, inclined to vote for him precisely because of the media’s perceived bias against him. This underscores the belief that the Times’s efforts could backfire, potentially increasing support for Mamdani. The belief is that the more the Times intervenes, the more they galvanize support for Mamdani.
This negative view of the Times is not just about the mayoral race. It reflects a broader critique of legacy media, with many expressing a loss of faith in the publication’s objectivity and integrity. The comments suggest the Times is viewed as a vehicle for promoting conservative viewpoints and suppressing any attempts towards real progress.
In conclusion, the comments present a strongly negative view of the New York Times’s coverage of Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral bid, accusing the publication of bias, manipulation, and an active effort to sabotage his campaign. The argument is that the Times is acting as a tool of the establishment, and its actions are a cause for concern.