The @NYTimes' journalistic malpractice to create a false narrative about Mamdani-supporting Jews ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Tuesday, August 05, 2025

The @NYTimes' journalistic malpractice to create a false narrative about Mamdani-supporting Jews

Many Jewish Voters Back Mamdani. And Many Agree With Him on Gaza.
Zohran Mamdani won over Jewish voters in New York City who were energized by his economic agenda and unbothered by — or sympathetic to — his views on Israel and Gaza.

Reading the article, you’d walk away with the clear impression that many Jewish voters supported him, and those who didn’t are either scared, confused, or comparing him to Nazis.

That framing isn't just misleading - it’s manipulative. And it follows a playbook that, once you see it, you can’t unsee.

Let’s start with the basics. Mamdani is a polarizing figure because of his aggressive criticism of Israel, including using terms like “apartheid” and “genocide.” That’s a third-rail issue in a city with America’s largest Jewish population. It is a fair journalistic question to ask how he won and what Jews think of him.

But instead of digging into the demographic complexity of New York’s Jewish voters - who range from Orthodox to unaffiliated, politically diverse, and often divided on Israel - the article builds a story around a very specific slice: activist Jews who already support Mamdani and align with his politics.

We hear from a bike mechanic canvasser, a philanthropy exec, a mother at a bus-themed Shabbat event—all Jewish, all pro-Mamdani, all used to build the narrative that Jewish support for Mamdani is meaningful and growing.

What we don’t hear is this: A poll conducted before the election showed Mamdani pulling around 20% of the Jewish vote. That’s not insignificant, but it’s far from the groundswell the article implies. And without that number, phrases like “many Jews supported him” or “double-digit support” are meaningless, designed to feel persuasive, not inform.

The number of words quoted from pro-Mamdani Jews outnumber criticism of Mamdani 435-165. That 2.6-to-1 imbalance portrays the opposite of reality: Most Jews do not support Mamdani and many are frightened about what his election would mean to their day to day lives in New York City. Those voices are minimized or ignored.

I asked a couple of AIs, based only on this article, what their impression of the percentage of Jewish voters appear to support Mamdani. Google Gemini estimated in the 40-50% range, Claude said 30-50%, ChatGPT said 40-60%. Has his support really tripled among Jews since the election, or are we being manipulated?

Then comes the “balance”: a rabbi who compares Mamdani’s win to the rise of the Nazi party in Austria. That’s not a counterargument; that’s a rhetorical trap. By choosing an extreme critic, the article defuses legitimate concerns and makes Mamdani’s Jewish critics look hysterical or out of touch.

This is manipulation of the reader on multiple levels. It is propaganda disguised as news reporting.

I previously looked at who the 20% of Jews who voted for Mamdani likely are. I noted a 2023 poll of New York City Jews:

16% said being Jewish was not important to them
27% said having Jewish grandchildren was not important to them
15% had no connection to the Jewish community
22% did not observe Yom Kippur
48% never participate in any Jewish programs
32% of those who give charity never give to Jewish organizations

Notice how these numbers all cluster around 20-25%.

In other words, the Jews who support Mamdani are the Jews who have already largely abandoned Judaism. They don’t represent the Jewish community: they represent very liberal New Yorkers who, by chance of birth, happen to be Jewish.

The article never defines what it means by “Jewish.” Are we talking about religiously observant Jews? Ethnic Jews? People of Jewish birth who enjoy bagels and lox? Or, in this case, the "as-a-Jews" - activists who only invoke their Jewishness when it’s time to defend anti-Israel positions?

This definitional slipperiness lets anyone with a Jewish identity - no matter how disconnected from Jewish communal life - serve as moral cover. That’s not representation. It’s exploitation.

It matters. This kind of reporting shapes how the public interprets Jewish opinion, antisemitism, and what counts as “mainstream.” When you stack the deck with cherry-picked voices and bury the demographic reality, you’re not just telling a story. You’re building a false moral consensus.

Worse, you are positioning New York Jews with legitimate fears of a Mamdani administration as irrational at best. The reality is that the Jewish majority who care about their people, their religion and Israel are overwhelmingly against Mamdani. Where are the articles about them?

Journalism like this isn’t just biased. It’s structurally deceptive.

And calling that out isn’t about partisanship. It’s about intellectual honesty.