By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The New York Times faced criticism for publishing a story about mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s racial self-identification, sourced from an individual known for promoting “race science.” The Times article focused on Mamdani’s college application where he listed multiple races, and he explained his background as an American born in Africa. Controversy arose, however, due to the source, identified as Jordan Lasker, who the Times described as an academic. Reports show Lasker regularly defends race scientists and their arguments of racial inequality, using IQ tests to suggest inferiority. Critics argue that the Times downplayed Lasker’s extreme views and gave him anonymity, making the article questionable.
Read the original article here
The narrative surrounding the recent New York Times article about Zohran Mamdani, a mayoral candidate, is deeply troubling, particularly due to the origins of the information and the publication’s framing. The article itself, detailing Mamdani’s college application where he checked “Black or African American” alongside “Asian,” appears to be a shallow attempt to damage his credibility. The real issue, however, lies in the source of this information: a person with demonstrably extreme views on race, leaning into the realm of “race science.” The fact that the Times would rely on such a source to fuel a story about a political figure is concerning.
The reliance on this specific source raises several significant questions about the NYT’s editorial choices. This individual, dropping out of a graduate program, is reportedly known for expressing racist views. The Times, in choosing to use information provided by such an individual, seems to be downplaying or entirely ignoring the source’s troubling ideology. This is a crucial oversight. It suggests a willingness to overlook extremism when it serves the purpose of attacking someone the paper considers an ideological opponent. Many feel that the publication is playing into dangerous territory, echoing tactics used by right-wing outlets.
The timing and focus of the article also raise eyebrows. The revelations in the article, while perhaps slightly awkward for the candidate, do not seem to be particularly damaging or even relevant to his policies or qualifications for office. However, the timing of the article is noteworthy, coinciding with his mayoral campaign. Several feel that the article is a deliberate attempt to undermine his campaign. This is particularly concerning to those who see the Times as an establishment outlet that may be wary of a candidate seen as being left of center, even a democratic socialist. This leads to the suspicion that the article is a “hit piece,” using any means necessary to damage the candidate.
The public’s reaction to the Times’ reporting has been largely negative. Many see the publication as “grasping at straws” in its effort to discredit Mamdani. Some critics are canceling subscriptions and deleting the app altogether. This reflects a growing distrust of the Times, especially from those who believe the publication is more concerned with maintaining the status quo than with providing unbiased reporting. It reinforces the concern that the newspaper is a corporate entity that is afraid of anti-corporate politicians. The very same concerns the public has about the NYT can easily be applied to other news outlets.
The situation underscores a broader trend in modern journalism: the erosion of trust in mainstream media. A great many commentators have pointed out that the press is in a state of crisis. Many feel journalism itself is dying, as the public’s faith in the ability of news organizations to provide accurate, unbiased information is waning. The reliance on sources with extreme views, combined with the selective focus of the Times, only exacerbates this trend. The narrative has become that the corporate world will back fascists over anyone left of center, so the press must do the same.
Furthermore, the article can be viewed as another example of the media’s tendency to focus on superficial aspects of a candidate’s background rather than their ideas. Mamdani, being a Muslim immigrant, is being attacked for his race. Many feel that attacking him based on his origin is a way to create a distraction and avoid discussing the merits of his policy proposals. The article highlights the way his background, rather than his ideas, is being used as a weapon against him. If his policy ideas were more in line with the mainstream establishment, would they spend time with racial attacks? Several people seem to think that the answer is a resounding “no.”
In conclusion, the New York Times article on Zohran Mamdani is seen as deeply flawed. The reliance on a source with racist views, the questionable timing, and the superficial focus of the article all point to a publication that is losing the trust of its audience. This incident is a symptom of a larger problem: the erosion of trust in mainstream media and the increasing polarization of political discourse. It serves as a stark reminder of the importance of media literacy and critical evaluation of all news sources, no matter their reputation.