Why the media (not just MAGA) is freaked out over Mamdani

Plus: Midterms success for Democrats must avoid the false choice between affordability and opposing Trump

I have no idea if Zohran Mamdani will be a good mayor for New York City, or if he’s really the face of the new left, or the salvation of the Democratic Party.

As a New Yorker myself, I certainly hope he’ll be able to make good on his campaign pitch of making the city more affordable and equitable for the millions who live here.

Despite press coverage ranging from tepid to hostile, Zohran Mamdani won the mayoral race in New York City on a platform of affordability / Getty Images

That remains to be seen. What is certain, though, is that Mamdani has presented some sort of existential threat to the media, both on the right (full-on panic mode) and in the establishment press (somewhere between hostility and puzzlement).

There is a media freakout underway. A few examples.

An unhinged Washington Post editorial published a few days after the election was titled “Zohran Mamdani drops the mask.” (That is a gift link in case you’d like to indulge.) Wildly misrepresenting Mamdani’s acceptance speech, calling it angry and divisive, it begins boldly: “A new era of class warfare has begun in New York, and no one is more excited than Generalissimo Zohran Mamdani.” And continues: “Across 23 angry minutes laced with identity politics and seething with resentment, Mamdani abandoned his cool disposition and made it clear that his view of politics isn’t about unity … It is about identifying class enemies — from landlords who take advantage of tenants to ‘the bosses’ who exploit workers — and then crushing them.” This editorial never would have appeared in the Washington Post a year ago, but we are truly in a new era there. You can listen to the mayor-elect’s actual acceptance speech here but it’s none of those things, nor is it markedly different in tone from what he campaigned on.

Right-wing media continues predicting that millions of New Yorkers are now going to flee the city. If you’d like an entertaining take on this ridiculous notion, I recommend Jordan Klepper’s sendup on The Daily Show.

Fox Business gave a headline and story to President Trump’s prediction that Miami will become the go-to destination for those running from Mamdani’s rule. “The Democrats are so extreme that Miami will soon be the refuge for those fleeing communism in New York City,” Trump is quoted. “It’s common sense or communism.” Trump insists on calling Mamdani a Communist, though he is a democratic socialist who won the Democratic primary in June and trounced traditional Democrat Andrew Cuomo. Fox, needless to say, does not offer a corrective.

As I noted in my election media wrap-up last week, the Murdoch-controlled New York Post likes the communist theme too, depicting Mamdani on Wednesday as a red menace wielding a hammer and sickle.

And then there’s the New York Times, which did what it could before the election to thwart Mamdani’s rise, including by inventing a scandal and essentially endorsing Andrew Cuomo despite its non-endorsement policy for local races. (As a separate matter, I disagree with this newish Times policy, since local races are actually where newspaper editorials can be useful.)

Now, the Times seems to be caught in its own weird web of contradictions. On Sunday, for example, the Styles section offered a look at Mamdani’s wardrobe, despite the fact that there’s not much to say — he wore an unremarkable dark suit, white shirt and narrow tie just about every day. But it’s revealed here that these suits are relatively cheap and not designer brands; they may have cost about $600 each from Suit Supply. The piece ends on a paternalistic note, seeming to suggest that Mamdani should find a New York-based designer once he becomes mayor. Not sure this was worth the printer’s ink or its digital equivalent. Much better was Eliza Shapiro’s front-page story about the actual affordability crisis in New York, in which even relatively affluent residents are struggling to live in a reasonable way. The article was deeply reported — talking to a range of real New Yorkers. Its prominent placement suggests that the Times does understand the problem at some level, though it sported a print headline that dusted off a dated word: “In New York, Even Yuppies Are Rebelling.” I haven’t heard — or even thought of — the word yuppies (young urban professionals) in decades. Its appearance here suggests a certain out-of-touch-ness.

Before the election, Columbia Journalism Review offered a pitch-perfect take on traditional media’s unease with Mamdani, with special attention to Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, titled “Legacy papers have been weird and hostile toward Zohran Mamdani.” Hamilton Nolan wrote: “Newspapers and their editorial sections emerge out of obscurity when it is time for the establishment to bare its fangs against a perceived threat.”

“Since June,” he notes, the Wall Street Journal “has run more than fifty editorials and op-eds attacking Mamdani.” The Journal’s entire opinion section “has taken on the discomforting character of a drunken middle-aged man trying to hit on a self-possessed college student by lecturing her on why she shouldn’t believe all the communist crap they teach in school.” Nolan is on target, especially when he arrives at his conclusion about the Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal’s reactions to Mamdani. Despite their different places on the political spectrum, they share a common aim.

“Their commitment to keep change modest, to keep reform within reason, to keep the basic arrangement of things steady” is fundamental to all three, he writes. Mamdani goes further. Hence the freakout.

It’ll be fascinating to see the coverage and commentary at these august institutions once Mamdani’s mayoralty begins. The honeymoon, I suspect, will be mighty short — a day trip to Niagara Falls at best.

Since Mamdani’s win last week and other key election victories by the Democrats, many words have been penned and spoken about what it all means. Should the Democrats embrace centrism, since two anti-Trump centrists won important gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey? Or should they lean left, because of Mamdani’s victory and the California redistricting proposition? Should Democrats focus on affordability or go hard against Trump? Cable-news pundits have been abuzz.

Greg Sargent at the New Republic nailed it best in urging a unified message for the Democrats that avoids this false choice by instead powerfully combining them. He argues that anti-Trump politics and affordability politics are one and the same:

“It’s not just that there is no need to choose between attacking Trump’s lawlessness and addresing ‘the price of eggs’ .. it’s that the two missions are inseparable.” He makes the case logically and well. Read it here.

---

---

One other note: Later this week, I’ll be recording a video podcast at the request of Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate in economics who recently left the New York Times to start a Substack newsletter. We’re going to talk media, and certainly the Times will be a part of that since we are both Times alums with opinions about our former employer. Once he publishes it, I’ll be sure to let you know.

Readers, are you feeling encouraged after last week’s election? Angry about what’s happening regarding the government shutdown and the Democrats’ apparent move toward ending it despite the cost? Let me know.

Thank you for your support and your comments, which I always read with great interest. Thanks for caring about the crucial relationship between responsible journalism and a functioning democracy.

Here’s why one reader of American Crisis decided to upgrade to a paid subscription. Perhaps you’ll consider joining her so all can continue to read without running into a paywall; as I detail below, I removed the paywall last fall.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US, and teach an ethics course at Columbia Journalism School. I’ve also written two books and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Last fall, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!