Hacker News Reader

Comment by KennyBlanken | Hacker News Reader

The NY Times coverage of him is abhorrently biased. Every time I see an article about him, the headline, summary, and article itself feel like the editors were desperate to paint him in as negative a light as possible.

The man has almost overnight gotten the city to start doing things that benefit the general public, nto just the wealthy. Actions on bike lane projects that were stalled and actually taking action against slumlords.

All that barely gets a mention, but they seem obsessed with trying to find fault with everything he does.

During the NBA finals, he paid for his own ticket but they still took him to task for its expense ($1000) and the ticket coming from the "VIP ticket pool" like this was some abuse of his position or unethical of him.

Of course the mayor gets access to the VIP pool of tickets? And he didn't abuse the privilege to get tickets for anyone else - not staff, not family, not friends. Just him.

View on HN

Because he represents a huge threat to power.

He's showing that government can be efficient. It can help people. People can actually like their local governments. And that is completely counter to the politics of these rags and their funders.

They want to talk about how government can't work, will always be inefficient, and how it must be cut.

The people who own these papers know that the obvious solution to a lot of societal problems is "tax the rich, build out social programs" and they desperately don't want that message to get out. It makes it a lot harder to setup gig and gambling economies.

It might be fun to have LLMs take a look at efficiency.

Each job has input and output with each task requiring some level of expertise that has some price tag, some financial and some social value.

I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers are all over the place. Doing it by hand would be a monumental undertaking.

They are racist, and unfortunately hard core israel supporter, which makes anybody that doesn't go with that agenda as a target.

The moment that Mandani said he will stay home and serve the people of NYC, what asked 'where are you going to make your first visit when elected' it made him a target. He showed he wasn't willing to bow down to a foreign power.

NYT still tries to put a veneer of modicum. NY Post is the one that is unbashingly always negative against Mamdani, full on attacks all the time.

I think people had enough of it, and saw through it and voted for him just in spite.

I know all the members of my soccer team voted for him. I had no clue who he was, but all the attacks backfired and made him even more famous.

Murdoch's News Corp, owner of the NY Post, has always hated political figures cut from the same "for the people" cloth as Mandani.

It's a pattern going back to humble origins in Australia, continued forward in the UK when they shredded Fleet Street norms, and exuberantly applied throughout their decades in the USofA.

Same with Politico and WSJ. Transparently biased against him.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com