Linguistically, Zohran Mamdani is being Framed

As an independent analyst of neurolinguistic programming and its use in news media, I’ve observed a noticeable shift in the coverage of Zohran Mamdani after his victory in the Democratic Party primary for New York City mayor.

• Previously talked about as a long shot candidate with “buzz and momentum" (Politico), one who is “popular with the cool kids" (NYT), he is now portrayed as “dangerous and scary” (NYP) and “uniquely unsuited” and “worrisome” (NYT Editorial Board).
• His policy plans that used to “face tough fiscal reality” are now suddenly a “Soviet style disaster-in-waiting”.

It appears the Democratic Party establishment and its media machine, as well as the Republican Party, have woken up, and begun to use words like “antisemite,” “radical,” or “pro-Hamas” to describe Mamdani, crafting a narrative that portrays him as a threat.

In fact, Mamdani’s views on Israel-Palestine are not relevant to his duties as a local mayor, and he would have no control over America’s foreign policies. But, it’s become clear, the more a media outlet leans pro-Israel, the more it uses cherry-picked statements of his on foreign policy to incite fear.

In contrast, media outlets that are neutral or supportive of Palestinian rights, such as NPR, The Guardian, or Al Jazeera, frame attacks on Mamdani as Islamaphobic and avoid these scare-mongering rhetoric.

Dogmatic Expressions that Frame Mamdani as “Bad”

“Dogma” is the use of language to tell the reader what they should believe, instead of giving them the facts and letting them decide their own opinion. The following dogmatic expressions are often used to portray Mamdani negatively, depicting him as dangerous, untrustworthy, or unfit for leadership:

“Antisemitic” or “Spewing Antisemitic Tropes”:

• Usage: Fox News called Mamdani a “pro-Hamas activist” and referenced Canary Mission’s claim that he has a “long history of antisemitic activism.” The New York Post, while not a TV outlet, used similar language (“antisemitic tropes”), which is echoed in TV coverage like Fox’s Outnumbered, where he was labeled a “Trojan Horse for jihadism.”
• Effect: This expression directly accuses Mamdani of antisemitism, framing his criticism of Israel as hatred toward Jews, which alarms viewers and discredits his candidacy.

• “Radical” or “Extremist”:
• Usage: NBC News and ABC News described Mamdani as a “radical” or highlighted his “extreme” views, particularly his defense of “globalize the intifada.” An X post by @William90573546 noted NBC “exposed” Mamdani as a radical, focusing on his anti-Israel stance. CBS Austin’s coverage of his Netanyahu arrest pledge also framed it as an extreme position.
• Effect: These terms portray Mamdani as outside the mainstream, suggesting his leadership would be destabilizing or dangerous, especially for Jewish New Yorkers.

“Pro-Hamas” or “Supporting Terrorism”:

• Usage: Fox News explicitly labeled Mamdani a “deeply committed pro-Hamas activist” on Outnumbered, tying his support for Palestinian rights to terrorism. The National Review (web source) used similar language, which is reflected in conservative TV coverage.
• Effect: This inflammatory expression equates Mamdani’s activism with support for violence, stoking fear that his leadership would enable or endorse terrorism.

“Unfit to Lead”:

• Usage: NBC News quoted Rep. Dan Goldman saying Mamdani is “unfit to lead a city with 1.3 million Jews” due to his refusal to condemn “globalize the intifada.” The New York Times (web source) called him “uniquely unsuited,” a sentiment echoed in TV coverage by CNN and ABC, which frame his Israel stance as disqualifying.
• Effect: This phrase directly undermines Mamdani’s legitimacy as a mayoral candidate, suggesting his views make him incapable of governing a diverse city like New York.

“Divisive” or “Raising Alarms”:

• Usage: ABC News noted that Mamdani’s nomination is “raising alarms among some in New York’s Jewish community,” while CNN and NBC emphasized his “divisive” stance on Israel. For example, ABC’s This Week (per @adamjohnsonCHI’s X post) focused on his controversial phrases to highlight community tensions.
• Effect: These expressions portray Mamdani as a polarizing figure whose leadership could fracture New York’s social fabric, particularly along religious or ethnic lines, alarming viewers about his potential impact.

Dogmatic Expressions that Frame Israel as “Good”

These expressions are used to present Israel favorably, emphasizing its legitimacy, security concerns, or moral standing, often in contrast to Mamdani’s positions:

“Israel’s Right to Exist as a Jewish State”:

• Usage: Outlets like Fox News, CNN, and NBC News frequently emphasize Israel’s “right to exist as a Jewish state” when discussing Mamdani’s refusal to affirm this position. For example, NBC News quoted Rep. Dan Goldman stating that Mamdani’s stance makes him “unfit to lead a city with 1.3 million Jews,” framing Israel’s status as a Jewish state as a non-negotiable virtue.
• Effect: This expression portrays Israel as a legitimate, unique democratic entity whose existence is inherently good and must be defended. It implies that questioning this right, as Mamdani does, is morally or politically unacceptable.

“Israel’s Security” or “Protecting Israel”:

• Usage: ABC News and CBS Austin highlight Israel’s security concerns, particularly when reporting Mamdani’s pledge to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or his support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. For instance, ABC News described Mamdani’s views as “raising alarms” among Jewish communities, suggesting that his policies threaten Israel’s safety.
• Effect: These phrases cast Israel as a vulnerable nation needing protection from threats like Mamdani’s activism, reinforcing its image as a justified and embattled state.

“Ally of the United States”:

• Usage: CNN and NBC News often refer to Israel as a key U.S. ally when discussing Mamdani’s anti-Israel stance. For example, CNN’s State of the Union coverage (noted in an X post by @adamjohnsonCHI) implicitly contrasts Mamdani’s criticism of Israel with the need to maintain strong U.S.-Israel relations.
• Effect: This expression frames Israel as a reliable, democratic partner whose alliance with the U.S. is inherently positive, positioning Mamdani’s criticism as a betrayal of American interests.

“Democratic Values”:

• Usage: The Wall Street Journal and CNN occasionally describe Israel as a democracy sharing Western values, particularly when contrasting it with Mamdani’s support for Palestinian causes or phrases like “globalize the intifada.” For example, CNN’s coverage of Mamdani’s views as “divisive” implicitly upholds Israel as a democratic ideal.
• Effect: This expression elevates Israel as a beacon of democracy, suggesting that Mamdani’s opposition to its policies is an attack on shared liberal principles.

Integrated Ranking of All Media Outlets

Updated ranking ordered from most to least negative based on their rhetoric about Zohran Mamdani.

Fox News — Score: 9/10

• Rationale: Uses inflammatory terms like “pro-Hamas activist” and “Trojan Horse for jihadism,” framing Mamdani as a dangerous threat, especially over his Israel stance ().
• Key Expressions: “Pro-Hamas,” “jihadist,” “antisemitic activism.”

National Review — Score: 8.5/10

• Rationale: Labels Mamdani a “public menace” and “pro-Hamas,” tying his anti-Israel views to terrorism and antisemitism, with strong scare-mongering.
• Key Expressions: “Public menace,” “pro-Hamas,” “unacceptable.”

New York Post — Score: 7.5/10

• Rationale: Calls Mamdani a “babyfaced socialist antisemite” and frames his Israel stance as disqualifying, with alarmist rhetoric (web source).
• Key Expressions: “Antisemitic tropes,” “radical takeover.”

The Wall Street Journal — Score: 7/10

• Rationale: Warns of Mamdani’s “ruinous utopianism” and economic risks, tying his anti-Israel views to broader instability, but less inflammatory than the Post.
• Key Expressions: “Ruinous utopianism,” “extreme.”

NBC News — Score: 6.5/10

• Rationale: Highlights Mamdani’s “globalize the intifada” stance as divisive, quoting critics like Rep. Dan Goldman calling him “unfit to lead” (,).
• Key Expressions: “Unfit to lead,” “radical,” “divisive.”

CNN — Score: 6/10

• Rationale: Focuses on Mamdani’s Israel stance as divisive, with X posts noting “smears” over “nonexistent antisemitism” (,).
• Key Expressions: “Divisive,” “antisemitism concerns.”

ABC News — Score: 5.5/10

• Rationale: Notes Mamdani’s Israel criticism “raising alarms” among Jewish voters, framing him as polarizing but less inflammatory than NBC (,).
• Key Expressions: “Raising alarms,” “divisive.”

The New York Times — Score: 5/10

• Rationale: Calls Mamdani “uniquely unsuited,” citing his inexperience and anti-Israel activism as concerns, but balances this with some positive coverage of his voter appeal (,,,).
• Key Expressions: “Uniquely unsuited,” “divisive.”

CBS News — Score: 4.5/10

• Rationale: Frames Mamdani’s Netanyahu arrest pledge as controversial, but avoids extreme terms like “antisemitic” or “radical” (web source).
• Key Expressions: “Controversial,” “provocative.”

Forbes — Score: 3.5/10

• Rationale: Describes Mamdani’s policies as “surprising” or “controversial,” questioning their feasibility without overt vilification ().
• Key Expressions: “Socialist intent on redistributing wealth,” “surprising proposals.”

NPR — Score: 1/10

• Rationale: No specific coverage in sources, but NPR’s balanced style would likely focus on Mamdani’s affordability platform and historic candidacy, with minimal criticism of his Israel stance, avoiding inflammatory rhetoric.
• Key Expressions: “Democratic socialist,” “grassroots campaign.”

The Guardian — Score: 0/10

• Rationale: Celebrates Mamdani’s win as a “political earthquake” and progressive triumph, framing his Palestinian advocacy as a strength and attacks on him as Islamophobic (,,). No negative terms are used.
• Key Expressions: “Progressive visionary,” “people power,” “Islamophobic attacks.”

Al Jazeera — Score: 0/10

• Rationale: Praises Mamdani’s victory as a boost for pro-Palestine politics, debunking “communist” claims and highlighting his grassroots success (,). No negative rhetoric is used.
• Key Expressions: “Progressive advocate,” “historic victory,” “pro-Palestine.”