Latest news with #ChristopherRufo
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
NY Times rushed out story on Mamdani claiming to be black on Columbia application over fears it would be scooped by Christopher Rufo: report
The New York Times rushed to put out its story on Zohran Mamdani claiming to be 'African American' when he applied to Columbia University because the newspaper feared it would be scooped by right-leaning journalist Christopher Rufo, according to a report. The Gray Lady is facing a storm of criticism following its decision to publish the story based on hacked Columbia documents that revealed Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, identified as both 'Asian' and 'Black or African American' on his 2009 college application. Mamdani, who is of Indian descent and was born in Uganda, confirmed the details to the Times and said he checked those boxes because the application did not reflect the complexity of his background. Two people familiar with the reporting process told Semafor that the Times knew Rufo and other reporters were working on the same lead. Rufo confirmed to Semafor that he had been pursuing the story and planned to release more details on his Substack. A Times spokesperson denied that Rufo's reporting prompted the timing of the publication. 'We publish stories once newsworthy information is confirmed and our reporters and editors have completed their work,' a Times spokesperson told The Post. 'That was the case with this story; we went to Mr. Mamdani, he confirmed our information as true, and our colleagues had done thorough reporting. We don't hit publish because others may be working on a story.' Times editors also sought to push back on the public criticism. '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,' Patrick Healy, assistant managing editor for standards and trust at the Times, told CJR. Mayor Eric Adams, who is running against Mamdani as an independent, publicly called on Columbia to release Mamdani's admission records, calling his racial identification 'deeply offensive.' Aides to former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who lost to Mamdani in the Democratic primary, said Mamdani's claims on the form could be 'the tip of the iceberg' and that the state assemblyman could be hiding even more 'fraud.' The Times piece drew criticism over the weekend, sparking heated debate among Mamdani's supporters, media observers and even Gray Lady journalists. Some critics defended Mamdani's racial identification, pointing out that he was born in Africa. Others questioned the ethics of reporting on a college application that was ultimately rejected, and whether hacked materials from a teenager's personal file merited a full news article. A large share of the criticism focused on the source of the documents — an online figure known for using the pseudonym Crémieux. Initially described by the Times as 'an academic and an opponent of affirmative action,' Crémieux has previously promoted controversial views on the link between race and IQ. According to the Guardian, Crémieux is the alias of Jordan Lasker. The Times later updated the article to note that Crémieux 'writes often about IQ and race.' The Post has sought comment from Rufo and Mamdani. Lasker was not immediately available for comment. Jane Kirtley, a media ethics professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, questioned the decision to grant the source anonymity. 'It seems a little disingenuous to play this game of 'We know something you don't know,'' she said. 'Why would you promise him anonymity and then play hide-the-ball with the readers?' She added: 'My question is: Why would you have even made that promise to this individual in the first instance? I don't see the need.' The story also caused friction within the Times newsroom. 'People are really upset,' one Times journalist told Semafor. Times columnist Jamelle Bouie was particularly vocal, posting on Bluesky: 'i think you should tell readers if your source is a nazi.' He deleted that post — and others expressing frustration with the article — citing a violation of Times social media guidelines. Bouie did not respond to a request for comment. Lydia Polgreen, another Times columnist, shared her perspective without directly commenting on the story's newsworthiness. 'I can see why a political young man like Zohran might fill out his college application the way he did,' she wrote on Twitter. 'Because if you are like me, you struggle to be known in this country. Our visual sorting is so simplistic and quite brutal.' Polgreen, who is biracial with African parents, said she understood Mamdani's identification choices. The Times leadership stood by the reporting. According to Semafor, senior editors were aligned in their decision to publish and approved the story after a standard editorial review. A senior Times reporter defended the story by pointing to the public conversation it had sparked. 'The fact that this story engendered all the conversation and debate that it has feels like all the evidence you need that this was a legit line of reporting,' the reporter said. Still, critics questioned the newsworthiness of the article and the Times' choice to base it on stolen records.
Fox News
6 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
NY Times published Mamdani college application story to avoid getting scooped by Christopher Rufo: Report
The New York Times pushed out its controversial report on New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's Columbia University application to avoid being scooped, Semafor reported Sunday. Two people familiar with the Times' process told Semafor that the paper knew other journalists were working to publish the same story, specifically conservative activist Christopher Rufo. The Times reported on Thursday that Mamdani, when asked his race on his 2009 college application to Columbia University, checked the boxes for "Asian" but also "Black or African American." Rufo responded to Semafor's report on X, saying "kudos" to the Times journalists who published the Mamdani report. Mamdani's application was made available to the Times after a cyberattack on Columbia University in late June led to some of the school's sensitive information being exposed to the hackers. The paper then reached out to Mamdani directly, who confirmed the information. The NYC Democratic mayoral candidate told the Times that he considered himself "an American who was born in Africa." "Most college applications don't have a box for Indian-Ugandans, so I checked multiple boxes trying to capture the fullness of my background," he told the outlet. "Even though these boxes are constraining, I wanted my college application to reflect who I was." The Times report was slammed by liberals, including one of the outlet's columnists, Jamelle Bouie, who slung personal insults at the reporters. Responding to a Bluesky post slamming Times reporter Benjamin Ryan, Bouie said, "Everything I have seen about him screams a guy with little to no actual brain activity." Bouie then deleted the posts because he said they violated The New York Times' social media standards. "The fact that this story engendered all the conversation and debate that it has feels like all the evidence you need that this was a legit line of reporting," a senior Times reporter told Semafor. The backlash led to the Times' assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust, Patrick Healy, issuing a statement on X Friday. "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," he wrote. Healy stated that although the outlet received the information after it was stolen in a cyberattack, "The Times does not solely rely on nor make a decision to publish information from such a source," and verified the application with Mamdani himself before publishing the story. A New York Times spokesperson told Fox News Digital: "We publish stories once newsworthy information is confirmed and our reporters and editors have completed their work. That was the case with this story; we went to Mr. Mamdani, he confirmed our information as true, and our colleagues had done thorough reporting. We don't hit publish because others may be working on a story."
The Independent
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Anti-woke activist applauds his ‘friends' at the New York Times for Zohran Mamdani college application ‘scoop'
Right-wing activist and self-styled 'independent journalist' Christopher Rufo lauded his 'friends at the New York Times ' this week after it was reported that the Gray Lady rushed to publish a controversial story about how Zohran Mamdani filled out his college application because it didn't want to get 'scooped' by Rufo. Just before the July 4th holiday weekend, the Times sparked outcry when the paper dropped a piece about the New York City mayoral candidate having identified himself on a 2009 application to Columbia University as both 'Asian' and 'Black or African American.' Mamdani is of Indian descent and was born in Uganda. The 33-year-old state lawmaker told the Times that while he doesn't consider himself Black, he does see himself as 'an American who was born in Africa.' He also explained that, as a 17-year-old, he was attempting to represent his complex ethnic and racial background with the limited options provided on the form. 'Most college applications don't have a box for Indian-Ugandans, so I checked multiple boxes trying to capture the fullness of my background,' Mamdani said, adding that he also wrote on the application that he was born in Uganda. 'Even though these boxes are constraining, I wanted my college application to reflect who I was.' While criticism has focused on the newsworthiness of the piece in general, with intense debate centered on the Times' framing of how Mamdani self-identified in high school as a scandal, much of the outrage has also concentrated on the main source of the story. As initially published, the Times article noted that the story revolved around documents that had been hacked from Columbia's computer systems and provided to the paper by an 'intermediary' known as Crémieux, whom they merely identified as 'an academic and an opponent of affirmative action.' Journalists and researchers of right-wing extremism, however, quickly pointed out that Crémieux is the social media pseudonym of Jordan Lasker, a purveyor of white supremacist and eugenicist views whose public identity has been known for months. Amid the growing outcry, the paper would later update its article to indicate that Crémieux 'writes often about IQ and race' while editor Patrick Healy publicly defended the decision to publish the story and grant the source anonymity. '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,' Healy told the Columbia Journalism Review, though he did acknowledge on social media that it was 'fair feedback' for readers to want to know more information about Crémieux. On Sunday night, Semafor Media added another wrinkle to the roiling controversy over the Times story when it reported that the paper rushed to publish the story on Thursday afternoon over concerns that Rufo would beat them. '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,' Semafor noted. Rufo has risen to prominence in recent years as a crusader against critical race theory, DEI policies, and 'woke' ideology. Semafor pointed out that Rufo confirmed that he had been reporting out the story when the Times article dropped on Thursday, adding that he would follow up with additional details over the coming days on his Substack. Meanwhile, in an apparent effort to further tweak progressives and spark additional backlash against the paper over the Mamdani story, Rufo applauded the Times for its report and suggested they were on the same page. 'Bummer to get scooped, but kudos to my friends at the New York Times for being first to publish the story,' the conservative provocateur tweeted on Sunday evening. A Times spokesperson declined to comment to Semafor on whether Rufo's reporting prompted the paper to race ahead with its story, instead pointing to Healy's statement to CJR explaining his reasoning for publishing the piece. Among journalists and writers at the Times, opinions on the story have been divided, reigniting long-standing tensions between left-leaning staffers and editorial leaders. Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, for instance, has deleted several Bluesky posts in recent days criticizing the paper, including one slamming the paper for not telling 'readers if your source is a nazi,' because he said it violated the Times' social media guidelines. At the same time, senior editors at the paper appeared to be in agreement over the decision to publish the piece, while veteran Times journalists felt that the reaction to the story showed why it was worth pursuing in the first place. 'The fact that this story engendered all the conversation and debate that it has feels like all the evidence you need that this was a legit line of reporting,' a senior reporter told Semafor. As for the revelation that the paper was racing against Rufo to get the story out first, several media critics took the paper to task for seemingly being manipulated by the right-wing media ecosystem. 'Anyway if you banged out this dumb f***ing story while running out the door for the holiday weekend, in league with racist criminals, because you were worried about getting 'scooped' by Chris Rufo, what you're telling the world is that you CONSIDER YOURSELVES TO BE IN THE SAME BUSINESS AS CHRIS RUFO,' Indignity editor Tom Scocca posted on Bluesky. 'Indeed. The correct story is the manipulative stylings of Chris Rufo,' tech columnist Kara Swisher – who once hosted a podcast for the New York Times – reacted to Scocca.
Chicago Tribune
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: The lurking agenda in the argument for having more babies
The editorial about women having fewer children is shameful ('Should we worry about American women having fewer kids?' May 4). There is a pathetic patronizing attempt to walk the misogynistic message back with the reassurance that of course the Tribune Editorial Board supports any choice a person makes about childbirth. Overall, however, this editorial is a more sophisticated-sounding message than usual that woman are baby-making machines who just don't know what they should be doing to maintain the vitality of this country and perhaps we can remind them. Women are indeed making different choices than 50 years ago. We are more educated, on the whole, with more opportunities for fulfilling our aspirations. The editorial board notes that many women now earn college degrees and prioritize career. The implication is that they really be having children instead, such as the editorial's examples of women in Afghanistan and Yemen. We all are aware of the tragic status of women in those countries. But perhaps that is embedded in the editorial's message. Women have forgotten their role and place in society? Wouldn't this all be better if women did not care so much about other aspects of their lives and just did their duty as defined by the patriarchy? The board also leaves out other considerations that people have for delaying or not having children: the environmental crisis, for one example. Yes, work for better child care and parental leave, which is essential for those who choose to have children, but respect the growing numbers of men and women who are making other choices. And search for what agenda lurks underneath what appears to be a reasonable argument. In the meantime, if the board insists on talking about women's bodies, please consider impassioned editorials about, for example, abortion and contraception access, equitable research on women's health concerns, and the miserable mortality rate in childbirth, particularly among women of reference to the editorial 'Should we worry about American women having fewer kids?': One viable solution is to relax our collective sphincter muscle about . Newly arriving immigrants tend to be younger, healthier and fertile. This would would add to our population. As a 76-year-old Black American woman, I know that it has happened before in our country. Successive waves of immigrants from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Ireland weren't readily accepted due to their traditions, foreign tongues, different foods and, of course, their poverty. But with the passage of time, they became Americans. And then, as now, we the people of the United States of America became changed, as reflected in the foods we eat, our entertainment and our fashion. Look at them now — so many 'ethnic' success stories. Some opponents of present immigration benefited from past immigration, such as Christopher Rufo and Steven MillerThere are two main reasons the 'brilliant' (as the Tribune Editorial Board calls him) Elon Musk wants more babies. First, he wants more white babies, because he fears, like other white supremacists, that nonwhites will take over by outbreeding. Musk and his ilk see this the pathway to civilizational wrack and ruin. There are more than a few people in the MAGA hierarchy who are totally on board with this assessment. The second reason is to defend corporate capitalism, which survives only by ever-expanding markets for ever-expanding profits. It won't be sufficient to simply hollow out government resources and plunder public treasuries, although that will continue to occur. Capitalism needs a new baby boom (and the editorial mentions 'baby boom' approvingly) in order to keep demand spiking upward. Resources might be getting scarcer as the world's population soars past sustainability tipping points, but the eyes of capitalists will never be cast anywhere else but on their own balance sheets. We do need babies and families, as the editorial board says, to replace the current population, but a stable, sustainable Earth requires limits to growth and population. Make family life more affordable by fully funding perinatal care programs, housing assistance and day care programs. Raise wages and expand parental leave benefits. Our nation needs more of a commitment to, and investment in, people in general, not merely to have more kids but to have the means to achieve a more decent life. Yet we are called upon only to make more sacrifices of our social framework in order to provide billionaires like Musk with further tax cuts. How is that pro-family? Quality, not quantity, of life is what matters. Let's do first thought after reading the editorial was: Is someone trying out material for 'Saturday Night Live' or possibly a remake of 'The Boys From Brazil'? I applaud the Tribune Editorial Board for refraining from saying women should remain barefoot and pregnant. Remember, in general, men regulated women to second-class citizen status in this country. If the board wants women to have more babies, then give us back the right to control our own bodies, the right to say 'no' and in the workplace and at home. Perhaps the board should be wondering why we would want to bring more children into today's world. Who would knowingly want to bring new life into an authoritarian society?While I admire Timothy Shriver's larger point in his op-ed ('Pritzker, if you want to solve problems, lose the contempt,' May 8) that contempt should not be a part of our political discourse, I cannot let Shriver's blatant hypocrisy go without its own share of my own contempt. That horse is out of the barn, released by Republicans, and enabled by media pretending that old norms apply when they do not and have not since 2015, when Donald Trump began his first presidential campaign by impugning all Mexican immigrants as drug dealers and rapists. Pretty contemptible, yes? When any Democratic politician, including Gov. JB Pritzker, dares to stand up to extreme Republican rhetoric with any language beyond polite pablum and pious platitudes, pundits tell Democrats to lower the volume, cut the contempt and be nice. Democrats might alienate some putative centrist voter, and it just lowers the dignity of our political discourse. Heaven forbid Democrats do such damage to our precious polite political discourse! Meanwhile, Republicans such as our current president spew contempt like volcanoes of hatred, prejudice and madness. And that's regrettable, but Democrats should be nice? While the Republican lava flow of contempt incinerates our constitutional separations of powers, our economy and (especially for women) our very bodily liberty, we must be Timothy Shriver's thoughts are pleasant enough for a normal person, one just needs to recognize who Gov. JB Pritzker is addressing. President Donald Trump is the most offensive bully and contempt-monger in the history of the U.S. presidency. Pritzker must fight fire with fire.
Wall Street Journal
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Meet MAGA's Favorite Communist
Christopher Rufo is perhaps the most potent conservative activist in the U.S. Last year, he led the campaign that pressured Harvard University into replacing Claudine Gay as its president. His crusades against critical race theory and DEI in higher education have shaped President Trump's aggressive policies toward elite universities like Harvard, which the administration targeted this week with a $2.26 billion funding freeze. For the past year, Rufo has been working on a book called 'How the Regime Rules,' which he describes as a 'manifesto for the New Right.' At its core is a surprising inspiration: the Italian Communist thinker Antonio Gramsci, a longtime boogeyman of American conservatives. 'Gramsci, in a sense, provides the diagram of how politics works and the relationship between all of the various component parts: intellectuals, institutions, laws, culture, folklore,' said Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
