The Times Revises Its Policy on Publishing Stories Based on Hacked Materials

The New York Times has made headlines once again for its willingness to publish stories based on hacked materials, but this time it's not just about sensationalism or ratings-driven journalism. The paper is revising its policy on publishing such stories, and the reasons behind it are revealing.

On a day when Republicans passed legislation to strip 17 million people of their healthcare, The Paper of Record announced a SCOOP: A man named Mr. Mamdani accurately filled out an application form with his Indian parents born in Uganda. But that's not all - the story gets even more ridiculous from there.

Mamdani wrote in "Ugandan" on his application form, which allowed students to provide more specific information where relevant. This clarified what "African-American" meant! But wait, it's even more ridiculous. The only conceivable reason for this story to exist is to play on paranoid fears that citing a minority racial or ethnic background is some kind of nuclear trump card in the admissions process.

However, Mamdani didn't get accepted to Columbia. And he didn't get accepted despite his father being a famous professor there! This doesn't even rise to the level of being a "nothingburger." The story has three bylines, which is already suspicious given the lack of substance in the article.

But here's where things get really interesting: The Times got Mamdani's information because Columbia was illegally hacked. The paper was one of many outlets that declined to publish information hacked from the Trump campaign in 2024 after an orgy of non-stories from hacked inboxes in 2016. So, it seems like the standards have been silently revised yet again, in every case to the disadvantage of a Democratic candidate.

Amazingly, this is not just about Mamdani's story; it's also about who passed on the hacked information. The data was shared with The Times by an intermediary named Crémieux on Substack and X. He provided the data under condition of anonymity, although his identity has been made public elsewhere.

Crémieux is an academic who opposes affirmative action and writes often about I.Q. and race. This raises questions about why he was granted anonymity, as it seems to be a classic case of protecting a source with questionable motives. It's like they're taking us on a trip back to the 2016 nostalgia file.

The real story here is not Mamdani's application form or his alleged "SCOOP," but rather why The Times reporters and editors are so willing to accept the bizarre framing of a race science creep as a legitimate story. What's driving this decision, and how can we hold them accountable?

The Decision to Publish: A Vastly More Interesting Story

In this case, the decision to publish the story is far more interesting than the story itself. The Times has become a platform for pushing paranoid racial concerns and amplifying the voices of those who spread misinformation.

It's time for The Times to take a hard look at its own policies and practices when it comes to publishing stories based on hacked materials. It's time to hold themselves accountable for perpetuating harmful narratives and protecting sources with questionable motives.

The Real Story: Why Times Reporters and Editors are Willing to Accept Bizarre Framing

So, why are Times reporters and editors so willing to accept the bizarre framing of a race science creep as a legitimate story? What's driving this decision, and how can we hold them accountable?

The answer lies in the paper's willingness to silence its own critics and push back against those who dare to challenge its narrative. The Times has become complicit in perpetuating harmful stereotypes and amplifying voices that spread misinformation.

It's time for a change. The Times needs to take responsibility for its role in spreading propaganda and holding itself accountable for its actions. We need to demand better journalism from our paper, and we need to hold them to the highest standards of accuracy and fairness.

The Consequences: A Reckoning for the Times

The consequences of this policy revision will be far-reaching. If The Times is willing to publish stories based on hacked materials, what does that say about its commitment to journalism integrity?

It's time for a reckoning. The Times needs to answer to its readers and critics for perpetuating harmful narratives and protecting sources with questionable motives. We need to demand better journalism from our paper, and we need to hold them accountable for their actions.

The Future of Journalism: A Call to Action

The future of journalism is at stake. If The Times is willing to publish stories based on hacked materials, what does that say about the state of our industry?

We need to demand better journalism from our papers and hold them accountable for their actions. We need to support independent media outlets that prioritize accuracy and fairness over sensationalism and ratings.

It's time for a change. Let's take back our newspapers and our airwaves from those who seek to manipulate and deceive us. Let's demand better journalism, and let's hold those in power accountable for their actions.