15 Comments
User's avatar
Charles Kaiser's avatar

This is a terrific piece Dick. Thank you for all of your good news judgement and common sense. « The piece should have been spiked. » That is all that is worth saying on that subject.

Expand full comment
Deborah Caldwell's avatar

Thought this article, also published today, might interest you.

Mamdani's win unleashed a surge of Islamophobia — and showed how to beat it

https://religionnews.com/2025/07/09/mamdanis-win-unleashed-a-surge-of-islamophobia-and-showed-how-to-beat-it/

Expand full comment
Henry (Hank) Scott's avatar

So well said Dick. I'm waiting, albeit not eagerly, for more journalists to embrace the truth about Mamdani.

Expand full comment
Chris Rauber's avatar

Thoughtful and largely on target. The MSM totally missed the boot on Trump multiple times, and is now poised to miss it again as more and more Democrats, young, old and in between, sour on the geriatric ideas and energy of many leading Democrats. I'm 71, so I believe I'm allowed to say "geriatric."

Expand full comment
Barbara Raab's avatar

Yes, yes and more yes! The term “Democratic Socialist” seems to be attached with Gorilla Glue to every mention of Mamdani by just about every journalist, and none have even bothered to explain what that means in this case (do they even know?) Also, whether he is a Democratic Socialist or not, he is the DEMOCRATIC nominee — somehow that gets lost the more the DS term is thrown around. As to the NYT… Patrick Healy’s “defense” of the college application story was weak and sort of circular — we published because it was newsworthy and if it had not been, we would not have published. And let’s not forget that the Times went out of its way, in its run-on non-endorsement, to say that no New Yorker should put Mamdani on our ballots (when we had five slots, not just one, to fill). I would love to know who or what has gotten up the NYT’s a** — Bill Ackman? And, full disclosure: I did vote for Mamdani, though not enthusiastically (ranked him #5). He’s growing on me, though. If he does not win, I fervently hope it is because one of the other candidates makes a strong case for himself (though there seems to be only one who even possibly could), not because “Muslim” and “Democratic Socialist” have made New Yorkers freak out.

Expand full comment
Adrienne Johnson Martin's avatar

It's particularly infuriating that the Times' editors keep saying that story is newsworthy without explaining what makes it so.

Expand full comment
Carol Hymowitz's avatar

Important and on target column once again Dick Tofel. Thanks for writing this.

Expand full comment
Clothilde A Redfern's avatar

Hear hear, weak news judgment doesn't only disserve readers, it disserves journalism itself and increases the growing lack of trust in our information systems. Thank goodness for enduring principled editors highlighting the standards all should hold themselves to.

Expand full comment
Vincent's avatar

💯

Expand full comment
Alex Wallace's avatar

You make me smarter every single time you write.

Expand full comment
Betsy corcoran's avatar

Your points are spot on. The Times has become the publication of record for the "last" generation. Mamdani about the future - and about the people who will continue to build the city, not the ones just drifting into retirement.

Expand full comment
henry weinstein's avatar

Let me say Thank You for this terrific critique of coverage that's been slanted and sloppy, and thank you for providing salient facts absent from most of the coverage. Does the NYT or the WSJ or the NY Post actually think Mew York City would be better off wit Adams, Cuomo or Walden or a mystery write-in candidate who has yet to appear? One would that intelligent voters would ask themselves if arch bigot Trump wants to arrest Mandami and used corruption in his Justice Department to keep Adams in office, they might think about this race more analytically. Thanks again.

Henry Weinstein

Expand full comment
Md's avatar

Headlines provoke

Judgments provoke

Judgment provokes

Headlines that mangle basic grammar and defy common usage might be hastily written or otherwise AI driven but immediately destroy some or all credibility for any analysis following...

Expand full comment
Richard J. Tofel's avatar

Sorry you feel that way. Actually neither hasty nor employing AI. I still think there are multiple new judgments involved, and that each of them are provoked. But unfortunate if you or anyone else couldn't get past the headline. Would welcome your reaction to the piece itself if you end up reading it.

Expand full comment
James Traub's avatar

Right on, Dick!

Expand full comment