As the @nytimes assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust, I’ve received reader feedback regarding our reporting on Zohran Mamdani’s 2009 application to Columbia University. To provide context on how the reporting came together, I wanted to share some information:
The Times has been reporting comprehensively on Mr. Mamdani’s proposals for the city, his vision on the economy and affordability, his leadership record and his personal background, including his biography and South Asian heritage that he’s talked about during his campaign.
Times journalists for decades have done deep reporting on major party nominees for New York's mayor to provide insight, context and texture about their priorities, history and evolution. Our reporting helps readers better understand how candidates think and what they believe.
Our reporters obtained information about Mr. Mamdani’s Columbia college application and went to the Mamdani campaign with it. When we hear anything of news value, we try to confirm it through direct sources. Mr. Mamdani confirmed this information in an interview with The Times.
Mr. Mamdani shared his thinking about the limitations of identity boxes on forms like Columbia’s, and explained how he wrote in “Uganda,” the country of his birth – the kind of decision many people with overlapping identities have wrestled with when confronted with such boxes.
We believe Mr. Mamdani’s thinking and decision-making, laid out in his words, was newsworthy and in line with our mission to help readers better know and understand top candidates for major offices.
We sometimes receive information that has been hacked or from controversial sources. The Times does not solely rely on nor make a decision to publish information from such a source; we seek to confirm through direct sources, which we did with Mr. Mamdani.
Sometimes sources have their own motives or obtain information using means we wouldn't, like Trump's taxes, Wikileaks or Edward Snowden. It’s important to share what we can about sourcing, but we always independently assess newsworthiness and factual accuracy before publishing.
On sourcing, we work to give readers context, including in this case the initial source’s online alias, as a way to learn more about the person, who was effectively an intermediary. The ultimate source was Columbia admissions data and Mr. Mamdani, who confirmed our reporting.
We heard from readers who wanted more detail about this initial source. That’s fair feedback. We printed his online alias so readers could learn more about the person. The purpose of this story was to help illuminate the thinking and background of a major mayoral candidate.
Today we published the transcript of our latest @nytopinion focus group w/ 14 independents (voted for both Obama & Trump) on Biden’s first year. It was searing & surprising - surprising because many weren’t furious but resigned & out of hope. nytimes.com/2022/01/20/opi…
“I don’t know what the future holds. It’s scary. And I’m 66, so I have seen this country in lots of ups and downs, and I feel this is the lowest point in my lifetime,” said one Ohio woman who called life in America today “dismal.”
Many live paycheck to paycheck & were more worried about inflation than Covid. “I don’t care about Covid anymore. I want my kids to have a regular life. I don’t want the masks. I don’t want them social distancing. I do not worry about them getting sick,” said a 42yo Va. woman.
We have corrected a Times story about white college-educated voters in the Atlanta suburbs who are supporting President Trump. Here’s an explanation of what happened. nytimes.com/2020/10/21/us/…
Nationwide, many white college-educated voters are tilting toward Joe Biden. Our recent poll showed Trump ahead with these voters in Georgia (though by less than he was in 2016), and we sought to understand factors leading them to back Trump. nytimes.com/2020/10/20/ups…
We believe the premise and the story are sound. Two of the voters quoted are clearly Trump supporters but initially weren’t fully identified because of a lack of info obtained in reporting and missed in editing. We corrected the article to add more info about these voters
Today we published a story about Tulsi Gabbard’s popularity in unusual corners - the Russian state media, white nationalists, alt-right Internet trolls who call her “Mommy” - and the suspicions it has raised among some establishment Democrats. nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/…
.@llerer and @kevinroose have been following strange online activity around Gabbard for months, and we decided to start putting together this story a week ago - before Gabbard’s online announcement Thursday that she might boycott the next debate.
We’ve published a story examining Joe Biden’s belief that the source of the nation’s ills is Trump, not the broader Republican Party. Other Democrats see deeper problems: a GOP overtaken by Trumpism, complicit & a problem before Trump nytimes.com/2019/05/04/us/… via @nytimes
We decided to write this story to scrutinize part of Biden’s message: that he is a bipartisan-minded leader who’d work with Republicans to restore normalcy in a post-Trump DC. A lot of Democrats think he’s naive, & out of touch by referencing a once-moderate GOP that is no more.
Today we published a story about how Senator Amy Klobuchar treats her staff. The story is based on interviews with more than two dozen current and former staff members and our review of internal email written by Ms. Klobuchar to staff. nyti.ms/2Vde2zd?smid=n…
This is part of our coverage examining the leadership, judgment and professional conduct of candidates. We recently wrote about the Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign and complaints by female and black staffers, Joe Biden’s paid speeches and Kamala Harris’s actions as a prosecutor.
Of the 6 senators running, Klobuchar has the highest turnover rate in staff. We reached out to aides from over the years to talk about her as a boss. This follows other reporting about her policy views on Medicare for all and her decision to run as a heartland candidate.
Today we published a story about how a range of Democratic voters view Elizabeth Warren’s Native American ancestry issue. The upshot: many say they are uninterested/exhausted by the matter; see it as a Trump ploy; and care far more about her policy plans. nyti.ms/2Ei6N3E?smid=n…
After Warren began campaigning, we started asking a mix of questions to voters at her events & elsewhere. One was about her decision to highlight her ancestry & then apologize for it. After a month, it’s clear that Dem voters generally care less right now than political insiders: