A bit of controversy has been kicked up over a recent New York Times story about New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. On July 3, the Times’ Benjamin Ryan, Nicholas Fandos and Dana Rubinstein wrote, “Mamdani Identified as Asian and African American on College Application.”
The Times reported that on application to Columbia University in 2009, Mamdani checked a box that he was “Asian,” as well as “Black or African American.”
The Times wrote, “In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Mamdani, 33, said he did not consider himself either Black or African American, but rather ‘an American who was born in Africa.’ He said his answers on the college application were an attempt to represent his complex background given the limited choices before him, not to gain an upper hand in the admissions process. (He was not accepted at Columbia.)”
There are a couple of issues that have come up.
For starters, some questioned if what Mamdani put on a college application as a high school teenager 16 years ago is even a story to begin with.
The other issue is how the Times learned of the application.
Semafor’s Max Tani wrote that the story, “came as the result of the release of hacked Columbia University records that were then shared with the Times. The paper believed it had reason to push the story out quickly: It did not want to be scooped by the independent journalist Christopher Rufo. Two people familiar with the reporting process told Semafor that the paper was aware that other journalists were working on the admissions story, including Rufo, a conservative best known for his crusade against critical race theory.”
The Columbia Journalism Review’s Liam Scott wrote, “As initially published, the article indicated that the hacked materials had been provided, under the condition of anonymity, by an intermediary known on Substack and X as Crémieux, who was described only as ‘an academic and an opponent of affirmative action.’ But there’s more to that source: As The Guardian reported in March, Crémieux is the social media alias of Jordan Lasker, a promoter of white supremacist views. The Times updated its article to note that Crémieux ‘writes often about IQ and race.’”
The Times acknowledged in the story where the information came from. Patrick Healy, the assistant managing editor for standards and trust at the Times, told CJR, “Your question suggests that the ethical issue is based on whether the story was important and newsworthy enough to justify using this material. I would ask, important and newsworthy enough to whom? What is the basis on which these media critics decide whether a story about any particular politician is important? Mr. Mamdani confirmed it and spoke openly and thoughtfully about his experience on a subject that voters had not previously heard from him on.” He added, “What matters most here is whether the information was true and factual — it was, confirmed by Mr. Mamdani; that it was independently confirmed; and that it is relevant to the public.”
Tani wrote for Semafor, “The piece also seemed to divide staff, and reignited years-old internal tensions between some younger, more left-leaning members of staff and management.”
One Times journalist told Tani, “People are really upset.”
I should mention that the Times’ Dodai Stewart wrote a story with the headline, “Mamdani Once Claimed to Be Asian and African American. Should It Matter?”
Tani went on to write, “The Times story on Mamdani touches on a lot of the trickiest issues many newsrooms face today: whether and how to report on hacked documents, whether scoop-chasing can blow up relatively inconsequential stories, and how to write about many modern Americans’ complex racial identities. I did not find the admissions story to be particularly compelling (I’m mixed race and have on occasion found these kinds of forms to be somewhat reductive), though as a journalist who covers media inside baseball, I’ve often been on the receiving end of questions about the newsworthiness of my work. Clearly some people were interested in the story, even if others found it to be a complete nothingburger.”
Tani added, “The more interesting question revolves around Mamdani’s relationship with the Times, and how the Democratic nominee will treat the hometown paper of record if he is elected mayor in the fall.”
Nothing to see here
Turns out, when it comes to the so-called “Jeffrey Epstein Files,” the Justice Department says it's much ado about nothing. The documents that were supposed to expose embarrassing and potentially illegal activity of some powerful names in politics, business and entertainment in association with the convicted sex offender do no such thing, according to a DOJ memo released Monday.
The memo said, “This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’ There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”
The memo said, “No further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”
It also concluded what the medical examiner and authories have said all along — that Epstein died by suicide in prison.
All of this came as surprising and disappointing news to some.
The New York Times’ Devlin Barrett and Matthew Goldstein wrote, “For months, Attorney General Pam Bondi promised the release of documents on the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein that could reveal damaging details, drumming up anticipation over the files, long a source of speculation and conspiracy theories.”
But the DOJ memo, as the Times appropriately put it, “undercut her own statements, pouring cold water on baseless claims.”
It made for a provocative moment during a White House press briefing when Fox News’ Peter Doocy did a good job pressing White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.
Back in February, Bondi went on Fox News and was asked about the DOJ releasing the list of Epstein’s clients. Bondi responded by saying, “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review.”
So Doocy asked Leavitt about it on Monday.
Doocy said, “The FBI looked at the circumstances surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein. According to the report, this systematic review revealed no incriminating client list. So what happened to the Epstein client list that the attorney general said she had on her desk?”
Leavitt tried to wriggle out of the situation by saying, “I think if you go back and look at what the attorney general said in that interview, which was on your network on Fox News … .”
But before she could finish, Doocy cut her off to say what Bondi’s exact quote was: “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review.”
Leavitt said, “She was saying the entirety of all of the paperwork — all of the paper — in relation to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. That’s what the attorney general was referring to. And I’ll let her speak for that.”
Leavitt said during the press conference, “The Trump administration is committed to truth and transparency.”
The Times noted, “In the six years since his death in 2019, the case of Mr. Epstein has become a public obsession for a segment of Trump supporters, some of whom have accused two of his most senior advisers, Ms. Bondi and the F.B.I. director Kash Patel, of slow-walking the review and release of the case file.”
And it has been a constant topic in the MAGA media world. Matt Gertz wrote about that in his latest piece: “MAGA media eat their own after Trump administration denies their Epstein conspiracy theories.”
Gertz wrote, “While the Epstein saga is a bit of a sideshow in the grand scheme of things, what it highlights about the underlying dynamics of the MAGA movement is deeply unsettling. It demonstrates that the Trump administration is in hock to some of the most deranged conspiracy theorists imaginable, treating them as among its closest allies and devoting substantial resources to their care and feeding.”
Tweet of the day
OK, check out this tweet on X that rips into social media and, in particular, X:
Ok I've basically been entirely off social media and returning here it is overwhelmingly abundantly and profoundly clear that this place - and all of these places - are a poison - a prison of utterly short form deep sounding nonsense attached to no one that ur brain will discard imaging its learning. The entire thing is a theatre. A (expletive) pale simulacra of a life.
Wow, calling it “poison” among other critical things.
And who wrote this? The ex-girlfriend of X owner Elon Musk. Grimes, a 37-year-old singer, is the mother of three of Musk’s children.
For more on this, and the background of Musk-Grimes relationship, check out this story from People’s Meredith Kile.
Good sports
