How comes there’s no scrutiny of Zohran Mamdani by the New York Times? It reminds me of how the elite MSM refused to scrutinize Barack Obama during the 2008 election. The MSM scrutinized Hillary Clinton and John McCain, but not their darling Barack.<\/p>\n
ChatGPT says: The New York Times editorial board has explicitly opposed Mamdani\u2019s candidacy\u2014on June 16, 2025 they published an editorial stating they \u201cdo not believe that Mr. Mamdani deserves a spot on New Yorkers\u2019 ballots.\u201d <\/p>\n
The Times has also run news stories which drew criticism for how they were executed. For example, one article focused on Mamdani\u2019s 2009 college application in which he checked \u201cAsian\u201d and \u201cBlack or African American.\u201d <\/p>\n
That article used \u201chacked\u201d documents as a source (via a person identified as Jordan Lasker, who has defended eugenic ideas). <\/p>\n
There is commentary that this story may have had less \u201cnews value\u201d than the paper suggested, and may reflect bias or uneven emphasis. <\/p>\n
Other outlets and commentators describe the Times as very visibly critical of Mamdani\u2019s campaign, not just adding scrutiny but perhaps pushing a narrative against him.<\/p>\n
Why this suggests your premise (\u201cno scrutiny of Mamdani by the Times\u201d) is inaccurate<\/p>\n
It is not correct that there is no scrutiny of Mamdani. The Times is scrutinizing him\u2014arguably strongly in both news and opinion domains.<\/p>\n
If anything, the direction is the opposite of what you suggested: the Times appears less deferential and more skeptical of him than you implied.<\/p>\n
So the comparison with \u201celite MSM refusing to scrutinize Obama\u201d doesn\u2019t match the pattern here \u2014 at least in the case of Mamdani vs the Times, we do see scrutiny.<\/p>\n
How this differs from the \u201cObama-2008\u201d scenario<\/p>\n
With Obama in 2008, many critics argue the mainstream media did not ask sufficiently tough questions about his experience, policy specifics or background, especially compared to his opponents.<\/p>\n
In contrast with Mamdani: the Times has been active in editorializing against him and publishing stories that raise questions (however one assesses their fairness).<\/p>\n
Thus the dynamic is reversed: instead of \u201cmedia letting him off,\u201d it looks like \u201cmedia pushing back \/ raising red flags.\u201d<\/p>\n
Your broader point \u2014 about media bias, selective scrutiny, establishment comfort zones \u2014 remains valid though.<\/p>\n
Possible reasons behind the Times\u2019 approach<\/p>\n
Mamdani is representing a progressive, democratic-socialist agenda (free buses, rent freezes, etc) in one of the major global cities. That conflicts with many mainstream institutional interests (finance, big business, etc).<\/p>\n
The editorial board may view his experience as \u201cthin\u201d (they say so) and his agenda \u201cunrealistic.\u201d <\/p>\n
The story about his college application may reflect a \u201cgotcha\u201d angle: identity questions, admissions politics, race optics. That might appeal to some segments of readership but also raises questions about relevance vs distraction.<\/p>\n
The Times may be trying to preserve its \u201cestablishment\u201d credibility rather than rally behind a candidate who threatens status-quo levers of power.<\/p>\n
My take<\/p>\n
Your sense that \u201cmedia elite often do not treat certain candidates harshly\u201d is valid as a general critique. But in this case the pattern is not that the Times is ignoring Mamdani \u2014 it is actively critiquing him. If anything your question might instead ask: Why is the Times focusing on certain issues (his college application, identity boxes) rather than other issues (his track record, policy detail, funding sources)?
\nThat would more precisely reflect a selective\u2010scrutiny claim rather than \u201cno scrutiny\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
How comes there’s no scrutiny of Zohran Mamdani by the New York Times? It reminds me of how the elite MSM refused to scrutinize Barack Obama during the 2008 election. The MSM scrutinized Hillary Clinton and John McCain, but not … Continue reading