New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is many things.

He’s a man of taste, known for throwing extravagant weddings from rooftops in Dubai.

He’s a humanitarian, who stands to enrich New Yorkers lives’ by unleashing thousands of violent felons into their neighborhoods.

He’s an aspiring rapper, who enjoys dropping bars under the alias “Mr. Cardamom” whilst wearing only a bib and staring dead-eyed into the camera from the interior of a halal cart as school-aged boys dance alongside him.

But one thing he is not — don’t you dare even suggest it — is a socialist. Seriously. He’s not. Enough already.

Such was the insistence of the New York Times, which recently published an entire 1,200-word thinkpiece “debunking” Mamdani’s socialist affiliations.

In their article, the author begins by listing off instances of Cuomo and Trump describing Mamdani as a socialist and a “100 percent communist lunatic,” respectively (Trump has since started to refer to Mamdani as “My Little Communist”) (he really is the nickname king) before clarifying where the mayoral frontrunner really stands.

“[Mamdani] is a democratic socialist, which means his beliefs are similar to those of socialists but not exactly the same,” our author helpfully explains.

Per their own definition, socialism is “a doctrine that calls for public control of property and natural resources,” which “stands in direct opposition to capitalism, a system in which private individuals own the means of production.” But democratic socialism, the Times clarifies, is less about wielding the power of the state to take over private companies, and more about “wielding resources to help the greatest number of people… through a democratic process.” See, democratic socialists don’t force your business to hand over its assets to the state at gunpoint — the people vote for your business to hand over its assets to the state. Isn’t that sweet.

And Mamdani, they tell us, in their best impression of his own personal comms team, “has proposed nothing remotely close to a socialist-like takeover of private companies.”

Cool. There’s just one problem. Mamdani has quite literally been referring to himself as a socialist for years — and without the “democratic” qualifier, which the Times cartoonishly insists means something that must come as a great shock to all of the people who actually embrace the political label.

Let’s take a look at some of the key instances where Mr. Cardamom described himself as the very thing our esteemed paper of record just took 1,200 words to tell you he’s not.

If someone were most certainly not a socialist, one thing that would be super weird for that person to say is “there was definitely a point at which I started to call myself a socialist.”

Such a statement would seem to put to rest any doubts that said person was, in fact, a socialist.

And yet, what’s this? Mamdani uttering those very words in a Jacobin profile four years ago?

Full quote:

“I don’t think that my politics have changed all that much in my life. I can look back and identify the same core values that I have now that I had growing up. But there was definitely a point at which I started to call myself a socialist, and that was Bernie’s 2016 campaign. Because I saw all of these beliefs and these values that I held so dear, espoused by a man who proudly called himself a socialist as a result of those beliefs.”

Hmm. If my knowledge of the English language is correct, it sure seems like this totally-not-socialist guy just called himself a socialist. Specifically, right around the part where he said he “definitely” referred to himself as a “socialist.”

But maybe it was just a one-off moment. A slip of the tongue, after a long night of halal-cart rapping. Happens to the best of us.

And yet — what’s this? Mamdani once again embracing the term, this time in a Breakfast Club interview four months ago?? After being asked by host Charlamagne Tha God about why some politicians shy away from the socialist label, Mamdani replies bluntly:

“I don’t hide this. You know, it’s how I see the world. It’s the world that I want… It’s funny, there’s this one guy who comments under almost every one of my tweets and he’s like, ‘he’s a socialist!’ I’m like, ‘yeah, it’s in my bio.’”

Hmm. Weird.

While readers should note Mamdani’s bio currently reads “Democratic Socialist,” the fact that he responds to the accusation he’s a socialist with “yeah” certainly sounds like an, um, admission!

But let’s take a look at one more for good measure. Surely a non-socialist wouldn’t outright embrace the term three separate times… right?

And yet… what’s this?? Our boy Mr. Cardamom posting a Facebook meme last month straight up accepting the socialist label in a post about free buses?!

Ay dios mio.

“If making buses free means I’m a socialist, well…” Mamdani captions the post in question, alongside the following image:

“Not really worried,” Mamdani says in the picture with a wry smile. Translation? Call me a socialist all you want, IDGAF. Hell, I just told my boy Charlamagne I was a socialist on his huge radio show. YOLO, no rules, storm the gates, from the river to the sea, buses shall be free.

But while Mamdani may not be worried about being called a socialist… the New York Times sure seemed concerned when they felt the need to ‘clarify’ the mayoral candidate’s political affiliations with this recent piece. Even when said clarification ran counter to *checks notes* Mamdani’s own words.

And that, dear readers, is the real cause for concern here. Not whatever the hell Zohran does or doesn’t choose to call himself (I’m frankly more worried about the aforementioned Rikers prisoners being released, particularly at a time when freshly released felons are stabbing women on trains), but the fact that one of America’s largest newspapers apparently felt compelled to cover for Zohran — as if they were a bib in one of his music videos — right in the middle of a high-stakes election.

Because Mamdani can call himself a “socialist.” He can also call himself a “democratic socialist,” or “Mr. Cardamom,” or “MC Marxism the Liberator.” That’s his prerogative.

But when the media decides it’s their job to protect a mayoral candidate? From his own plain admissions? It starts to look less like news reporting, and more like PR with a byline.

—Riley Nork