Supporters of New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani often insist he is a moderate voice in a polarised debate about Israel. But on October 7 itself, while the attack was still unfolding, his wife, Rama Duwaji, liked Instagram posts celebrating the massacre as “collective liberation”.

According to reporting by The Free Press, it was one of more than 70 anti-Israel posts she endorsed or liked online, including claims of a “mass rape hoax” on October 7. There were also posts accusing Israel of committing “genocide” two weeks before Tel Aviv even launched a counteroffensive, and messages praising radical campus protests. In addition, Duwaji follows activist accounts that glorify Palestinian “martyrs” and liked content from Bisan Owda, an activist accused of ties to the US-designated terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

This is no minor detail. It reflects the same “decolonial” framework through which Zohran Mamdani views the Israel–Palestine conflict. Immediately after October 7, Mamdani mourned Israeli deaths but conspicuously ignored Hamas, criticising Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instead and framing the “path to peace” as ending the occupation rather than confronting terrorism.

Though Mamdani has since tried to moderate his tone, the underlying bias remains clear, and it should concern New Yorkers. The city is home to the largest Jewish community in the United States. At a moment when antisemitic hate crimes are at record highs, gestures of solidarity and photo ops with Jewish food ring hollow when the mayor’s own wife was celebrating October 7 as an act of “liberation”.

However, the New York Times decided that the more important story isn’t Duwaji’s behaviour, but that of those who scrutinise her. The appalling headline read “After Social Media Scrutiny, Mamdani Says His Wife Is a ‘Private Person.’” The Times buries the details of the posts several paragraphs into the article, instead initially describing them simply as “posts on Instagram that were supportive of the Palestinian cause” before immediately pivoting to Mamdani’s condemnation of those scrutinising his wife.

The defence of Rama Duwaji fits neatly into a broader pattern of puff pieces surrounding the city’s first lady. In February, as a snowstorm ravaged New York — killing at least 29 people — the mayor held a press conference wearing a customised coat in what seemed like a cringeworthy attempt to appear trendy and relatable. Yet the New York Times decided the jacket itself was worthy of a feature story, highlighting that Duwaji had designed it.

This favourable coverage contrasts sharply with the New York Times coverage of Mayor Eric Adams. In a lengthy article about “The Complicated Politics of Rama Duwaji’s Style,” the paper felt the need to note that while Adams attended high-profile parties with brands like Ralph Lauren, “Ms. Duwaji did not opt for the city’s biggest, most established names, the ones that dress the power players and celebrities of the city.”

Similarly, when discussing why crime has fallen in New York, the Times could not bring itself to credit the policies of the Eric Adams administration: restoring specialised police units, reviving broken windows-style enforcement through the Quality of Life Division, and increasing officer presence in the subway system. None of it received meaningful acknowledgement.

Instead, the paper noted that “the drop in crime came during Mr. Adams’s final year in office,” while focusing more on rising complaints against police officers and scandals involving department leadership. The implication was clear: the decline happened during Adams’s administration, but not because of it.

At the same time, the paper spent more time detailing how Mayor Zohran Mamdani will address the complaints against officers while ignoring the astounding reduction in crime. In perfect summation, the Times described Adams as “Swaggering, Scandalous, Strange.”

The contrast is telling. Tough-on-crime policies that demonstrably improve residents’ safety — even when enacted by a Democrat — are met with reluctant acknowledgement at best and outright disdain at worst. But when a political figure’s household likes rhetoric depicting Israel as uniquely evil, the response is softer: lifestyle coverage, fashion features, and flattering profiles.