By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During the primary leading up to Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani’s win, the New York Times subtly implied he struggled to gain support from Jewish voters. The paper’s coverage frequently mentioned Mamdani’s criticism of Israel, creating the impression he had difficulty appealing to this demographic, despite having no solid evidence. Post-primary polls, including those from Zenith Research and GQR Research, revealed Mamdani leading with Jewish voters by significant margins. However, the New York Times largely disregarded these findings, offering vague justifications and relying on ambiguous language in subsequent articles, while also refusing to respond to specific questions about the discrepancy.
Read the original article here
Why does the New York Times keep ignoring polls showing Mamdani leading with Jewish voters? Well, the core of this question seems to stem from a perceived disconnect between what polls are showing and the type of coverage given to a specific candidate, Zohran Mamdani, by the New York Times. There’s a noticeable frustration that the newspaper isn’t highlighting the fact that these polls are showing Mamdani with significant support among Jewish voters. This begs the question: why?
It’s suggested the answer lies in the Times’ alignment with certain power structures and narratives. The overarching feeling seems to be that the New York Times, like other large corporations, prioritizes its interests, which align with the existing economic and political elite. This means advocating for pro-capitalist, pro-Israel viewpoints. Presenting a socialist candidate, even one with significant support within a key demographic like Jewish voters in New York, goes against this established narrative. A candidate like Mamdani, who proposes policies that could challenge corporate power, is likely seen as a threat.
Furthermore, the argument is made that the Times, similar to other media outlets, operates under a controlled opposition dynamic, where certain perspectives are amplified to maintain the status quo. They can appear to be reporting on all sides of the issue while supporting the already established viewpoints. Supporting Mamdani wouldn’t fit their narrative of what’s “electable” or in alignment with the DNC establishment. They may see any coverage on his campaign as doing him dirty. The media outlet’s actions are viewed through the lens of financial interests and the individuals who own and operate the business end of the rag.
A significant part of the argument is focused on the economic interests of the Times’ owners and their impact on editorial decisions. It’s implied that these owners, often with ties to corporations, weapons companies, and private equity, would naturally be wary of a candidate whose policies might challenge their wealth and influence. This is where the idea of “following the money” comes into play; who benefits from the narrative being pushed by the newspaper? If the narrative aligns with the interests of the powerful, it’s more likely to be amplified, even if it means downplaying inconvenient truths or polling data.
The claim is that the New York Times is not necessarily ignoring the polls, but it’s choosing how to present the data, in order to not destabilize their desired narrative. The polls don’t get ignored, but they might get framed or contextualized in a way that diminishes their impact. They might be buried, or presented in a way that highlights the potential weaknesses of the candidate or the challenges of his victory. This selective framing allows the paper to maintain its preferred narrative while still technically reporting on the polls.
The article points out that this isn’t just about the polls themselves but about a broader ideological stance. If a candidate is anti-Zionist (or perceived as such) and polls show them leading among Jewish voters, this goes against the mainstream media’s narrative. The paper is accused of being “pro-capitalism and pro-Israel” so a candidate who goes against both of these points is not an ideal narrative. This undermines the idea that opposing Zionism is inherently antisemitic, a narrative some groups are very keen to push.
The article further argues that organizations like AIPAC have a considerable influence on the political landscape and actively work to undermine candidates perceived as too far to the left. This influence, it is suggested, extends to the media coverage and is a factor in the Times’ portrayal of candidates like Mamdani. The influence of these pro-Israel organizations on campaign finance may further shape the paper’s coverage.
There is also a sense of the Times being out of touch with its audience and the changing political landscape. It’s suggested that the paper has lost its way, becoming a “milquetoast version of what it thinks it is”. They are criticized for not recognizing the large group of liberal Jewish voters in New York who would not vote for more conservative candidates. The argument here is that the New York Times is more interested in maintaining a certain image than in reflecting the reality of the political situation.
Ultimately, the central thesis is that the New York Times’ actions are driven by a combination of factors: corporate interests, a desire to maintain the status quo, and a selective framing of information that supports their favored narratives. The polls showing Mamdani’s support among Jewish voters are inconvenient to this narrative, and therefore, their significance is downplayed, not ignored. It’s a claim of a deliberate strategic decision: to prioritize narratives that align with their preferred political and economic interests.