Thursday, October 30, 2025

The Most Wonderful Journalistic Disaster of the Year

By Jeffrey Blehar

Thursday, October 30, 2025

 

Readers, let us pause for a moment to celebrate what may turn out to be — with just two months to go — the single most delightful media disaster of the year. (The competition is fierce, as always.) I have written my fair share about the upcoming New York City mayoral race, but the imminence of a multinational immigrant and avowed communist seizing the reins as mayor of a truly international city has drawn the attention of other countries as well, particularly that of the U.K.

 

Thus it was a huge deal when the Times of London (est. 1785), an institution more staid and only slightly less venerable than Big Ben (est. 1843), seemed to have scored an utterly scandalous last-second interview with none other than former New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who announced that impending mayor (and former acolyte) Zohran Mamdani’s policies just “don’t add up.”

 

You remember Billy the Blazer, right? The improbably tall two-term mayor — a man who left the city so desperately and sclerotically broken that it turned in its desperation to Eric Adams — may not have burned New York to the ground, as people once warned that electing a gangly, surly socialist sympathizer would do. But the city’s marked decline in safety and opportunity, and increased cost of living, began under his reign, and so it was a huge news coup for the Times to score a strangely negative series of comments from the man Mamdani once described as the greatest New York mayor of his lifetime.

 

“In my view, the math doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, and the political hurdles are substantial,” de Blasio wrote when reached via email by the Times. It was a surprisingly hard-headed analysis. Many on the right have, of course, long emphasized that Mamdani’s pie-in-the-sky campaign promises are either unfulfillable or prescriptions for civic collapse. But it was a shocker to see de Blasio knifing the man who is the closest he will ever get to an ideological successor a week before the election.

 

I would love to give you a link to this story, but alas I cannot. You see, the Times has removed it from its website, because as it turns out the paper never actually spoke to Bill de Blasio. The real Bill de Blasio took to Twitter almost immediately after the article was published to state that he had no idea what the heck was going on and that he’d never spoken to anyone with the Times of London. And he hadn’t!

 

Yet there was no fraud at play, only reputation-torching irresponsibility. Get this: the Times in its infinite wisdom apparently interviewed the wrong Bill de Blasio. The reporter emailed an address he believed to be the former mayor’s but that belonged instead to a random Long Islander of the same name. And the paper never bothered to confirm that its reporter was actually communicating with the real de Blasio — because after all, he was. (“I’m Bill DeBlasio. I’ve always been Bill DeBlasio.”)

 

The New York Times — which, to its credit, would never have been caught making this mistake, no matter how much it might wish to forget de Blasio — has framed this story with an uncharitably accusatory headline: “De Blasio Impersonator Tricks British Newspaper With Fake Criticism of Mamdani.” Nonsense! That isn’t just wrong, the framing of it is perverse, an embarrassing expression of guild-class sympathy over professional pride.

 

The Times of New York should be clowning on its London counterpart properly, not reflexively taking the side of journalists too stupid to perform their basic due diligence. Bill DeBlasio — who is now a minor legend — did not hang his shingle out to the world advertising himself as the former mayor. He was sitting at home minding his own business, for crying out loud! Even though he knew he was taking advantage of the Times’ ignorance — “I never once said I was the mayor. He never addressed me as the mayor. . . . So I just gave him my opinion” — I cheer him for forcing these people to pay the price for their lazy assumptions.

No comments: